market_state

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get and format' implies a read-only operation with no side effects, and it discloses that the return is a formatted string. However, it does not elaborate on rate limits, error handling, or what 'market state' encompasses, which would enhance transparency.

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 compact and front-loaded, with a one-line purpose followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence contributes value, and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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?

For a simple read tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential information: purpose, symbol format, and return type. It could be more complete by mentioning potential errors or symbol variations, but given the tool's simplicity, it is adequately 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 schema only specifies the symbol as a string, but the description adds a concrete example ('BTC/USDC:USDC') and clarifies it is a trading pair. This provides meaningful semantics beyond the schema, helping the agent understand the required format despite 0% schema coverage.

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 with a specific verb ('Get and format') and resource ('current market state'), making it obvious what the tool does. It distinguishes itself from sibling trading tools (place_order, close_position, cancel_open_orders, account_info) by focusing on market data retrieval.

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 implies usage for checking market conditions but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are provided, leaving the agent to infer applicability from the tool's name and siblings.

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