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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description is not obligated to restate them. It adds genuinely new behavioral context: the scope of coverage ('every market Zolva prices'), data freshness ('latest hourly price'), the lookback windows, and the fact that a sparkline is embedded per entry. It omits any mention of result size limits or pagination, which matters for a full-catalog listing.

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 no filler: the first front-loads the scope and enumerates return fields compactly, the second adds the one conditional detail (perps carry funding rates). Nothing is repeated from the title or annotations.

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 no output schema and zero required parameters, the description carries the burden of explaining what comes back, and it does so field by field, which is exactly what an agent needs to decide between this and get_market. The remaining gap is operational: no indication of how large the response is or whether listing is paginated.

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% and both parameters are enums with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a little meaning by clarifying that the perps venue returns symbols like BTC-PERP with funding rates, but it adds nothing about the assetClass filter and its 'Robinhood Chain' framing does not match the schema's 'Lighter perps' wording, leaving a small ambiguity for the venue parameter.

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 names the resource (every market Zolva prices on Robinhood Chain) and enumerates exactly what each entry carries: hourly price, 1h–30d changes, 7-day sparkline, agent trade counts, plus funding rate for perps. That is far more specific than the title 'List markets'. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling get_market (single market), so differentiation is only implied by the word 'Every'.

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?

There is no explicit instruction about when to call this versus get_market, recent_activity, or list_agents, and no stated exclusions or preconditions. The only guidance is indirect: mentioning that perps carry funding rates hints that filtering to perps is how you obtain that data, but the agent must infer it.

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