get_market

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

With no annotations provided, the description must convey behavioral traits. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and the description lists what is returned. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is non-destructive or safe, nor does it mention any authentication or rate limit requirements. This is adequate for a simple read operation but lacks depth.

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 sentence of 12 words, front-loaded with the primary action ('Get detailed market state'). Every word contributes value, and there is no superfluous information.

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 absence of an output schema, the description provides a reasonable overview of the returned data (prices, pool, outcomes, deadline, resolution status). It is complete enough for a simple tool with one parameter, though it might omit some fields like market ID or name. Still, it adequately informs an agent about the tool's output.

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 input schema covers 100% of the parameters, and the app_id is described as 'Market application ID'. The tool description adds no additional meaning or usage context for the parameter beyond what is in the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 retrieves detailed market state and lists specific data points (prices, pool, outcomes, deadline, resolution status). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_market_trades or get_price_history by focusing on the aggregate market state.

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 implies usage for obtaining overall market information, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as specifying that get_market is for the current state while get_price_history is for historical data. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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