get_markets

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only, no auth', which is sufficient for a simple listing tool. However, it omits details like rate limits or response format, which would add safety margin.

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 with no waste: purpose, read-only claim, and usage guidance in a logical order. Every sentence adds value, making it highly 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?

The description covers what the tool returns (prices, volume, metadata) and when to use alternatives. With only 2 parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate context. It could mention pagination but is still sufficient.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any parameter detail beyond what is already in the schema. It does not explain syntax, constraints, or examples, so it neither helps nor harms.

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 starts with a clear verb ('List') and specifies the resource ('live prediction market contracts') and included data ('YES/NO prices, 24h volume, metadata'). It explicitly differentiates from siblings by naming search_markets and get_context, making purpose unambiguous.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use for deep dives on a specific topic', and names two alternatives (search_markets with keyword, get_context for overview). This clearly sets usage boundaries.

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