ultrade_market_markets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get markets' implies a read operation but doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what data format is returned, if there are rate limits, or any side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this description fails to provide essential behavioral context needed for safe and effective use.

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 extremely concise ('Get markets') but borders on under-specification rather than effective brevity. While it uses minimal words, it fails to provide necessary context that would help an AI agent understand the tool's purpose. The structure is front-loaded but incomplete, lacking any explanatory details.

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 complexity of financial market tools and the absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. 'Get markets' doesn't explain what constitutes a market in this system, what data is returned, or how this differs from similar sibling tools. For a tool in a financial trading context with many alternatives, more specificity is needed.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema). Since there are no parameters to document, the description doesn't need to compensate for any gaps. The baseline score for zero parameters is 4, as the description appropriately doesn't waste space discussing non-existent parameters.

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 'Get markets' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'ultrade_market_markets'. It specifies the verb 'Get' but doesn't clarify what 'markets' means in this context or differentiate it from similar sibling tools like ultrade_market_symbols or ultrade_market_details. The purpose remains vague without additional context about what constitutes a 'market' in this system.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools related to markets (e.g., ultrade_market_symbols, ultrade_market_details, ultrade_market_price), there is no indication of what distinguishes this tool from others or when it should be preferred. No usage context, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned.

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