Query Markets

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

With no annotations provided, the description is the sole source of behavioral info. It implies a safe read operation ('Get detailed market data') and explains flexibility (filtering, field selection). However, it does not disclose potential side effects, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens on invalid queries. This is adequate but not rich.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. It covers all key aspects—query modes, field selection, presets—without any filler or redundancy. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the complexity (no schema, no output schema, no annotations), the description does a good job covering the main query capabilities and user choices. It is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's flexibility and start using it, though it could mention pagination or response format if needed. The presets list (pricing, metadata, trading, holders, status) enhances completeness.

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 is empty, so the description fully carries parameter documentation. It mentions querying by id/condition_id/slug, arrays, and tag, plus field selection and presets. This gives the agent meaningful guidance, but lacks exact parameter names, types, and syntax, which would be expected for a zero-schema tool.

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 states the tool's purpose: 'Get detailed market data with flexible querying.' It specifies the resource (market data) and the verb (get), and lists multiple query modes (by id/condition_id/slug, arrays, tag) that distinguish it from siblings like list_markets or get_event.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: when you need flexible filtering by single or multiple markets, or by tag, and want to select specific fields. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the coverage of query modes implies a general-purpose query tool, making usage clear.

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