market

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, which is helpful, and mentioning the order book and time remaining gives some idea of the response. However, it does not state side-effect freedom, authentication needs, or error behavior for cases like no active market.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the action, scope, and key response contents without wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a tool with one parameter.

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 low complexity and full schema coverage, the description gives a workable picture of what the tool returns. It identifies the game type input and highlights the main output components. A small gap is the lack of a more detailed return contract or behavior when no market is active, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a simple read tool.

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%, so the schema already documents the only parameter, 'gameType', including its enum value. The description mentions 'specific game type' but adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'current active market for a specific game type', and previews the key contents (order book, time remaining). It is specific and easy to understand, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'games' or 'status'.

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 usage context is implied: an agent would use this tool when it needs the current active market for a known game type. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over sibling tools, nor any stated prerequisites such as first fetching available game types from 'games'.

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