Get Live Volume

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

No annotations are provided, so the description alone must disclose behavioral traits. It merely states 'get live volume' without explaining whether the volume is a snapshot, how it updates, any rate limits, required permissions, or what the response contains. This is a significant transparency gap.

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 a single concise sentence, which is efficient and front-loaded. However, it borders on under-specification, as it contains no additional context that would help an agent understand the tool's niche.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter explanation, the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to convey what 'live volume' means, how to interpret the response, or any contextual details necessary for effective use.

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?

The schema defines a single required 'id' parameter (type number, minimum 1), but the description does not explain that 'id' refers to an event or how it is used. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to add any meaning beyond the raw schema, leaving the parameter ambiguous.

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 clearly identifies the action ('get live volume') and the target ('for an event'), providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_event or list_markets by focusing on 'live volume,' but does not explicitly call out alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_event_metadata or query_markets. The description lacks any context on scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support.

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