Get Market By Id

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on error behavior for unknown IDs, no return shape, no rate/scope context.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the action and object, with no filler. It is concise but so terse that conciseness comes at the cost of substance.

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?

For a lookup tool with no output schema, the description should at least hint at what a market object contains or distinguish ID-based lookup from slug-based lookup. As written, an agent must open the schema and guess among siblings to call it 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 coverage is 100% with a single required integer parameter documented as "Market ID", so the schema does the work. The description adds no format, range, or sourcing detail beyond what is already structured.

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 verb and resource ("Retrieve a specific market"), but it essentially restates the tool name and title, which already say 'Get Market By Id'. It offers no differentiation from close siblings such as get_market_by_slug or get_markets, which is exactly where an agent needs help.

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 use this versus get_market_by_slug, get_markets, or get_market_bbo. The description only implies usage through the word 'ID', leaving the agent to infer that a numeric ID (not a slug) is the selector.

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