search_markets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'returns markets matching the search criteria,' with no mention of result ordering, pagination, the 50-result cap (which appears in the schema but not the description), or any side effects. For a search tool, this is minimal transparency.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The core action and resource are front-loaded, and every word adds value. It is appropriately concise for a simple search tool.

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?

Despite having a nested filters object and no output schema, the description does not explain how filters interact with the query, what the returned market objects look like, or the limit cap of 50 per type. The schema covers parameter formats but the description misses behavioral context like result truncation, making it incomplete for an agent to fully anticipate the tool's behavior.

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% (all three parameters, including the nested filters object, have descriptions). The description adds no new meaning beyond restating the query's purpose ('text query, slug, or keywords'), which the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific verb ('search'), a clear resource ('markets'), and the means ('by text query, slug, or keywords'). It naturally distinguishes itself from the many sibling list tools (e.g., get_trending_markets, get_featured_markets) by being the text-search entry point, so an agent can identify its unique role without opening the schema.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. It does not mention conditions that would make filter_markets_by_category or get_trending_markets more appropriate, nor does it state any exclusions. The intended usage is only implied by the verb 'search'.

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