get_sports_markets

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether this is a read-only operation, whether results are paginated, how the limit parameter behaves, or what the response structure looks like. The description only says it gets markets, which is minimal.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short and front-loaded with the main action. The second sentence about filtering is useful but could be more specific. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has no annotations, no output schema, and sits among many similar market-listing siblings, the description is too thin. It does not explain what a 'market' is in this context, how results are ordered, whether sport_type is case-sensitive, or how this differs from get_event_markets and get_featured_markets. An agent would struggle to choose this tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds the phrase 'Optionally filter by specific sport type,' which reinforces the sport_type parameter but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('sports betting markets') and mentions an optional filter by sport type. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_event_markets, get_featured_markets, or filter_markets_by_category, which could overlap in purpose.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that search_markets or filter_markets_by_category might be better for broader or category-based queries, nor does it explain the context for using sport_type filtering.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.