Search recurring market series

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

With no annotations, the description covers some behavior: it clarifies that series names like 'btc-up-or-down-5m' represent many recurring contracts and that the tool is more reliable than search_markets. However, it does not mention pagination, default/limit behavior, or any response details. It is a middle ground.

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: concept with example, when-to-use, and next-step instruction. It is compact, front-loaded, and every sentence adds value.

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?

No schema exists; the description provides a clear workflow and example, making it complete enough to call. It could add details about default limit or filtering, but the description plus schema is strong and the extra context would be marginal.

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 fully covers both parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about using the slug as search input but does not add meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 defines what a series is, gives a concrete example, and clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like search_markets and search_events. The behavior is specific: searching recurring series rather than individual markets.

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?

Explicit guidance says this tool is for 'a kind of market rather than a specific one,' warns against guessing slug patterns with search_markets, and instructs the next step to use search_events on the resulting slug. This is clear routing with alternatives.

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