get_market_adl_events

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the auth requirement ("Requires API credentials"), which an agent needs before calling. However, it says nothing about pagination, ordering, retention window, or error behavior for missing/unauthorized markets, leaving gaps for a history-retrieval endpoint.

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?

Front-loads the deprecation notice, then one sentence for purpose and one for credentials. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 deprecated read endpoint with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies purpose, scope, auth, and the migration path. Only minor operational details (pagination, event fields) are absent, which is acceptable given the schema.

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 both market_id and limit are already documented, including the max-1000 bound. The description only reinforces that the query is scoped to a single market, adding marginal value beyond the schema — baseline 3.

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?

Names a specific resource (ADL settlement history) and scope (one market), and defines the domain term inline as events where the engine force-closed positions to cover a shortfall. It also names the replacement tool, so an agent can distinguish it from fetch_adl_events and the other adl siblings without opening a schema.

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 very first token is an explicit deprecation redirect to `fetch_adl_events`, giving an unambiguous when-not-to-use rule plus the alternative. An agent knows exactly which tool to prefer.

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