get_market

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does reasonably well: it declares read-only, free, no API key, and live data with read timestamps. It does not describe rate limits, freshness guarantees, or fallback behavior when a venue is unreachable.

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 sentences, zero waste. The read-only/free/no-key qualifiers and the live-data scope are front-loaded, and the usage sentence follows immediately.

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?

For a one-parameter, read-only tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what the agent needs to decide and call it. It could be richer about how the returned venue list is ordered or how fresh the snapshot is.

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 100% and the single enum parameter (network: mainnet/nile) is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no network-specific meaning or default-resolution detail beyond what the schema already states.

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 states a specific resource and scope: the live energy market across every venue TEnergy reads, with 1-hour/1-day price per unit (SUN) and read timestamps. It is clearly a market-snapshot read, though it never explicitly distinguishes itself from close siblings like get_prices or get_market_summary.

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?

It gives explicit positive guidance: use it to compare venues or to tell a user where energy is cheapest right now. No exclusions or named alternatives are provided, so the agent must infer when get_prices or get_market_summary is the better choice.

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