Get Market Clarifications

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

There are no annotations provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention potential errors (e.g., invalid market_id), required permissions, return format, or whether the operation is read-only. The 'get' verb implies read-only, but no explicit behavioral traits are disclosed.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the core purpose, though it omits any usage guidance or parameter context, which would be expected in a fuller description.

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?

This is a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema or annotations. However, the description does not explain what the returned 'clarifications' look like, how they are structured, or any edge-case behavior. Given the lack of an output schema, the description should provide more detail to be complete.

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 input schema has only market_id with a type of 'number' and zero description coverage. The tool description does not mention market_id at all, adding no meaning beyond the schema. For a low-coverage case, the description was expected to compensate but did not.

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 'Get clarifications about a market's resolution criteria' uses a specific verb ('get') with a specific resource ('market clarifications') and adds scope ('resolution criteria'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_market_tags or get_market_rewards, which target different aspects of a market.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It merely states the action without contextualizing it among related tools like get_event or get_market_metadata.

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