get_outcome_depth_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It correctly implies a read-only operation via 'Get' and discloses the cross-market scope, but it omits meaningful behaviors such as the network parameter defaulting to testnet, potential large response size from scanning all markets, or data freshness/latency.

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 with zero fluff: the first front-loads the verb and resource, the second lists the concrete output contents. Every word earns its place.

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 simple read tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the tool does and returns. However, it is incomplete as a usage guide: it omits the testnet-default caveat, sibling differentiation, and any warning about the breadth of scanning ALL markets.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it never mentions the single `network` parameter. The schema's enum and default are self-explanatory, yet the description fails to add any context (e.g., 'mainnet for production, testnet defaults'), leaving the significant testnet default behavior undocumented.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a clearly defined resource ('depth summary across ALL outcome markets'), and enumerates the delivered content (bid/ask depth, spread, best prices). The emphasized 'ALL' scope differentiates it from per-market siblings like get_outcome_book, though no sibling is explicitly named.

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 'ALL outcome markets' phrasing implies this tool is for a broad market-wide overview rather than per-market detail, but it never states when to prefer this over alternatives like get_outcome_book or get_outcome_prices. No explicit when/when-not guidance is provided.

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