get_markets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses the return semantics (how to read each market, its period, prematch/live availability) rather than just naming the resource. It stops short of stating auth needs, rate limits, or response structure, so it isn't fully exhaustive.

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 tight sentences: the resource and its return fields are front-loaded, then the usage rule with an example. No filler and nothing that could be cut without losing information.

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 single-parameter lookup with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies enough semantic detail about what comes back (shape/period/availability) to call it correctly. It lacks any statement of output shape or error behavior, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Only one parameter, and its schema description coverage is 100% ('Sport slug (e.g., football, basketball, tennis)'). The description's 'for a sport' adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the 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 states a specific verb and resource ('List the exact market names served for a sport') and further specifies the returned content (shape, period covered, prematch/live availability). An agent can tell this is the market-catalog lookup, distinct from odds/events/participants siblings, without opening the 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?

It gives a clear workflow directive: 'Use it before passing markets to other tools', plus a concrete gotcha ('names must match in full, e.g. ML not Match Winner'). No alternatives or when-not conditions are named, but the 'when' is unambiguous.

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