t_find_markets

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

Annotations are not provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic function and does not mention aspects like whether results are ranked, paginated, or if there are rate limits. The agent is left uninformed about important behaviors beyond the surface-level purpose.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action. It is concise with no wasted words. However, it achieves conciseness at the cost of omitting necessary details like parameter explanations and usage scenarios.

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 lack of output schema and 0% parameter description coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., market IDs, details) or how the parameters like 'limit' and 'group_by' affect results. More context is needed for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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%, meaning the schema lacks parameter descriptions. The description only mentions the 'query' parameter implicitly via examples (article body, news headline) but does not explain 'limit' or 'group_by'. No additional semantics are added beyond the schema's bare data types.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Find prediction markets matching a free-form text query.' It also provides examples of valid queries (article body, news headline, question), making the intent specific. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like t_event_related_markets or t_market_context, so purpose could be clearer.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the query type is described, there is no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or cases where this tool should not be used. The description only implies usage for text queries but offers no comparative context with siblings.

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