Get Markets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description contributes nothing beyond that: it says nothing about pagination defaults, result size, ordering behavior, or whether archived/closed markets are excluded by default (a real ambiguity given the active/closed/archived filters).

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?

It is only four words, so there is no wasted phrasing, but the structure is under-specified rather than concise. A single front-loaded clause identifying it as a filterable, paginated market listing would cost one more sentence and add real value.

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 tool whose only parameter is a 24-field nested query object with no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits pagination semantics (limit/offset), default filtering behavior, and any hint of the return shape, all of which an agent needs to invoke 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 description coverage is 100% and the nested query object documents every field, so the description is not required to explain parameters. It adds no meaning beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline 3 case when 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 is close to a restatement of the name: "Retrieve all markets" says the verb and resource but adds nothing about scope, filtering, or the fact that this is a filtered list endpoint rather than a lookup. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like get_market_by_id or get_market_by_slug.

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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. An agent cannot tell from this text whether get_markets should be preferred over get_market_by_id/get_market_by_slug for a single lookup, or when a broad listing is appropriate.

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