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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses what the listing returns (supplied, borrowed, utilization), what granularity it covers (per market), and what it deliberately does not do (platform-wide totals). The verb 'list' implies a read-only operation, and while it does not mention pagination or rate limits, it gives enough behavioral context for an agent to invoke it safely.

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?

The description is three sentences with the main purpose front-loaded and the market-type enumeration compactly placed in a single clause. The clarifying note at the end earns its place because it prevents a common confusion with a sibling tool. It is a bit longer than strictly necessary, but no sentence is wasted.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description compensates by naming the returned metrics (supplied, borrowed, utilization) and clarifying market scope. All five optional input parameters are fully described in the schema, so the agent has what it needs to construct a call. Missing details such as explicit pagination behavior or a pointer to get_market for single-market lookups are minor given the schema coverage.

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%, so the baseline is 3 because parameter details already live in the schema. The description adds useful domain color by mapping protocols to their concrete market shapes (e.g., Aave V4 spokes, Morpho Blue loan/collateral pairs), but it does not need to restate parameter format or defaults. This is acceptable but adds only modest value beyond the schema.

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?

Starts with a specific verb and resource ('List lending markets') and then enumerates exactly what counts as a market: Aave/Spark pools, Aave V4 spokes, Compound Comets, Morpho Blue pairs, and Kamino K-Lend markets. The second sentence concretizes the return value (supplied, borrowed, utilization per market), and the final note explicitly distinguishes it from get_market_overview.

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 gives a clear when-not signal by warning that this is not get_market_overview, which returns platform-wide totals rather than per-market data. It also frames the tool as the one to use when you need the individual market a depositor actually picks. It stops short of a full comparison with other siblings like get_market, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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