List currently-open Limitless (Base CLOB) markets, DepthFeed-exclusive. Every account plan; only the keyless demo surface is refused.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| coin | No | Crypto asset. Every account plan reaches all seven; only the keyless demo surface is BTC-only. | btc |
| type | No | Filter by market window/type. | |
| limit | No | Page size (1–100). | |
| cursor | No | Opaque pagination cursor from a previous response's pagination.next_cursor. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / coin / descriptionPrevious value: -"Crypto asset. Keyless/demo and Free plans are BTC-only; all 7 require a paid plan."New value: +"Crypto asset. Every account plan reaches all seven; only the keyless demo surface is BTC-only."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that the tool is DepthFeed-exclusive and that only the keyless demo surface is refused, giving useful auth and access context. This goes beyond the structured hints and does not contradict them.
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 concise sentences: the first states the core function and scope, the second covers access restrictions. There is no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary detail; 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?
Without an output schema, the description does not specify the return shape or pagination behavior beyond what the cursor parameter implies. It is adequate for a simple listing operation but leaves some ambiguity about the response contents. Given the simplicity and full schema coverage, it is close to complete but not fully.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all four parameters, so the schema already documents their meanings fully. The description itself does not elaborate on parameters, but that is acceptable because the schema carries the heavy lifting, hence the baseline score of 3.
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 explicitly states the verb 'List' with a precise resource: currently-open Limitless (Base CLOB) markets, further narrowed by 'DepthFeed-exclusive.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like limitless_get_orderbook or limitless_get_snapshots, which fetch specific data rather than browse open markets.
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 implies usage for browsing open Limitless markets and notes that all account plans have access except the keyless demo surface, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. No sibling comparisons are mentioned, so guidance remains implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.