sm_markets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. The verb 'List' implies a safe read-only operation, and the cross-reference to other tools adds behavioral context (IDs are useful downstream). However, it doesn't disclose pagination, authentication, or rate limits.

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?

Two sentences: first states purpose, second gives cross-tool usage. No wasted words, front-loaded with the core action.

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?

The tool has 3 parameters with a mode enum, but the description omits these modes and doesn't clarify output format or differentiate from odds_get_event_markets. It covers the primary listing function but misses important operational details.

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 0%, yet the description does not explain the id, mode, or searchQuery parameters. It only mentions market IDs in the output, not how inputs control listing behavior.

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?

Description states 'List available betting markets in SportMonks' - a clear verb+resource. It adds downstream context by noting IDs are for use with sm_odds_prematch and sm_odds_inplay, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling odds_get_event_markets.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use market IDs with sm_odds_prematch and sm_odds_inplay' tells the agent when to use this tool. Lacks exclusions or alternative tool mentions, so not a 5.

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