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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so no contradiction is present. The description adds meaningful context by enumerating exactly what is read: contracts, fees, provider, activation state, and wallet-approval boundary, which goes beyond the annotations.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the primary action ('Read'), and every phrase adds value. It covers scope and usage timing without any filler.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description is complete. It explains what the call returns, when to call it, and leaves no operational 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter burden for the description to carry. The baseline of 4 applies, and the description appropriately focuses on output scope rather than input semantics.

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 ('Read'), resource ('canonical market contracts, fees, provider, activation state'), and a clear scope. It is meaningfully distinct from siblings like get_internal_marketplace_status or get_mainnet_marketplace_status through the word 'canonical'.

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 phrase 'before any market action' provides explicit timing guidance for when to use this tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, but the canonical scope implies the boundary clearly enough.

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