fetch_market_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the auth profile (public, no credentials) and qualitatively describes what is returned, but says nothing about rate limits, caching, or response format. It adds genuine value over the bare name but does not fully cover behavior for an unannotated 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?

Two short sentences, purpose front-loaded and the access constraint second. Every clause carries information — nothing is filler or redundant.

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 one-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is close to complete: it conveys what is fetched, the possible states, and the no-auth property. The one omission is disambiguation from the 'get_market_status' sibling, which an agent selecting between the two would want.

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 coverage is 100%: the single 'market_id' parameter is already documented with an example ("BTC-USDX-PERP") in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb (get) and resource (a market's trading status) and enumerates the returned states (open, halted, auction), so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. However, it does not differentiate from the near-identical sibling 'get_market_status', which also exists in the tool list, leaving ambiguity about which to pick.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives. Given a sibling 'get_market_status' with essentially the same purpose, the absence of any disambiguation is a real gap. The only contextual cue is 'Public — no credentials needed', which is a property, not usage guidance.

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