List Bopster markets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does add real context beyond the schema: it states the return payload (YES/NO pools, total volume, end/resolve times, a pagination block with page/size/total/pages) and the USDC 6-decimal unit convention plus the added *_formatted and *_iso convenience fields. It does not mention auth requirements or caching/rate behavior, which is the main remaining gap for a non-annotated tool.

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?

Three sentences with zero filler, front-loaded with purpose and followed by capability, then return shape and units. Every clause conveys information an agent cannot get from the structured fields alone.

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?

With no output schema, the description is doing the necessary work of describing the return shape, pagination block and unit conventions, which makes it largely complete for a 9-parameter read tool. It stops short of covering auth/access requirements or the relationship to sync_market, but nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is clearly missing.

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% and three params have enums, so the schema already documents every parameter thoroughly. The description only summarizes filter families at a high level and adds nothing about title vs question search granularity, the creator address/name dual lookup, or the sort_field enum. Baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Search and list prediction markets on Bopster', and adds identifying context (non-custodial market on Base). It is clearly a filtered-list operation, but it never names a sibling such as get_market (single-market fetch), so the differentiation is left implicit.

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 sentence 'Supports filtering by status, category and text, plus sorting and pagination' implies the browsing/search use case, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus get_market or sync_market, nor any stated exclusions. Usage is inferable rather than directed.

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