Canonical market-state graph

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that: no statement about freshness, caching, what 'state evidence' contains, or whether the data is chain-specific. It neither contradicts nor enriches the annotations.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler and the key noun phrase front-loaded after the verb. It is efficient, but the brevity is under-specification rather than disciplined concision, so it is only adequate.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required. Still, for a tool whose name collides with several siblings and whose chainId parameter is undocumented, the definition leaves the agent without enough to call it correctly or prefer it over alternatives.

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 0% for two parameters. The description implies the market is identified by address but never explains the marketAddress format, and the chainId parameter is completely unaddressed — including whether it is required, defaults, or how it interacts with the address. The description does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 verb (get) and a resource (canonical market state plus state evidence), so the basic intent is legible. However, 'state' is left undefined, and among siblings like problee_get_market_resolution_state, problee_get_market_chart, and problee_get_market_depth there is no hint which notion of 'state' this returns. An agent cannot confidently separate it from the resolution-state tool.

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 offers no when-to-use context, no exclusions, and names no alternative. With three or more sibling market-state tools, the agent is left to guess which one to call. 'Canonical' is the only implicit signal and it is not operationalized.

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