compare_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. It conveys a presentation style ('side by side') and the use case, but is silent on output format, odds freshness/aggregation, error behavior for invalid market IDs, and any authentication or rate-limit expectations. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a meaningful transparency gap.

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 short sentences, each earning its place: the first states the operation, the second the decision-relevant use case. The action verb is front-loaded and there is zero filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 comparison tool, the definition is mostly adequate: the schema fully documents the input, and the description communicates the core operation and use case. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the agent is left guessing about return format and about when to prefer this over the sibling tools. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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%: the sole required parameter market_ids is documented as 'Market IDs to compare' with minItems (2) and maxItems (10) constraints. The description's mention of 'odds across multiple markets' reinforces the parameter's meaning but adds nothing beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 — 'Compare odds across multiple markets side by side' — and adds a concrete use case. The action reads distinct from siblings like get_market (single market) and search_markets (discovery), though it never explicitly names or contrasts itself with any sibling. Clear purpose, but sibling differentiation is only implicit, so 4.

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?

'Useful for finding relative value or arbitrage opportunities' implies when the agent should reach for this tool, but there is no when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternatives. The sibling list is noisy and repetitive (get_market, scan_trending_markets, search_markets, get_events), so an agent gets little help choosing among overlapping market-centric tools. Usage context is implied, not explicit.

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