Newest listings

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral detail beyond the schema: outcome ids grow monotonically with each listing, which helps an agent reason about recency. It does not discuss pagination behavior, but the schema covers limit/offset.

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 compact sentences with the ordering constraint front-loaded. The reference to odds_markets requires sibling knowledge but is efficient; nothing is wasted.

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?

With an output schema and rich annotations, the description only needs to cover ordering, field parity, and any non-obvious behavior. It does that, though it leaves the category filter's role unexplained and does not state pagination semantics in prose.

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 67%, with limit and offset documented in the schema and category exposed as an enum without prose. The description adds no parameter-level guidance, so the baseline 3 applies for partial 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Lists HIP-4 markets') plus an ordering ('newest first'), which distinguishes it from the sibling odds_markets. It stops short of fully defining what HIP-4 markets are, but the core purpose is 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 newest-first ordering implies this is the tool for discovering recent listings versus odds_markets, but it never explicitly says when to choose this over the siblings or what conditions exclude it. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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