get_clob_market

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output structure (token_id, live prices, min order/tick sizes, market status) and the tool's role as a data bridge. This goes beyond a minimal read-only statement and gives concrete expectations about the returned data.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action in the first sentence, followed by return details and usage guidance. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is sufficiently complete. It lists return fields, explains the tool's integration role, and names related tools for follow-up actions. It could mention response structure (e.g., array vs object) but that is not essential for a simple getter.

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 already covers the sole parameter with a description ('Market condition ID (hex string)') at 100% coverage. The description adds contextual meaning by calling it 'on-chain condition ID' and explaining the bridge role, but it does not add syntax or format details beyond the schema. 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Get'), identifies the resource ('CLOB market details'), and scopes it by 'condition ID'. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on the bridge between on-chain condition IDs and CLOB token IDs, which is unique among the listed siblings.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('This is the bridge between on-chain condition IDs and CLOB trading data') and provides explicit next-step guidance ('Use the returned token_id values with get_live_prices, ...'). It does not explicitly mention when not to use it, but the bridge metaphor and chaining instructions give clear usage context.

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