t_market_context

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

No annotations exist; the description adds minimal behavioral info (accepted formats for market_ref) but omits details like pagination, sorting, rate limits, or whether events are live. Mutation/read status is unclear.

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 short sentences, no wasted words. Purpose and a key parameter hint are front-loaded. Could be more structured but efficient.

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 no output schema and simple parameters, the description lacks details on event ordering, completeness criteria (e.g., time range), and error cases. Incomplete for confident invocation.

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 coverage is 0%. Description clarifies market_ref accepts venue-prefixed id, slug, or URL, adding value over schema name, but does not describe 'limit' or default behavior.

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 returns events (news/social/macro) for a specific market, with a resource 'market_ref'. It differentiates from siblings like t_event_related_markets (which likely does the inverse) and t_find_markets (general search), though not explicitly.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool over siblings t_bundle_context or t_event_related_markets. It only describes accepted formats for market_ref, not usage context.

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