ccxt_list_exchanges

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, establishing a safe read operation. The description adds value by explaining that the tool summarizes configured authenticated vs. public access and market-type metadata, which clarifies the output shape beyond the annotations. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 a single, efficiently worded sentence. It front-loads the primary action ('List CCXT-supported exchanges') and then succinctly lists the summary aspects. No filler or redundancy.

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?

The tool has no output schema, but the description conveys the main output type: a summary of exchanges with their auth/access status and market-type metadata. It lacks explicit return formatting or examples, but given the tool's simplicity and strong schema/annotations, it is reasonably complete. Minor ambiguity about whether the output is a filtered list or an all-encompassing summary prevents a 5.

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. The description does not directly elaborate on parameter behavior beyond what the schema already provides, such as the hasAuth filter or marketType enum. It only vaguely references 'market-type metadata' which aligns with marketType but adds no new detail.

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 clearly identifies the verb 'List' and the resource 'CCXT-supported exchanges', then specifies the summary dimensions (authenticated accounts, public market access, market-type metadata). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ccxt_list_accounts (accounts only) and ccxt_describe_exchange (single exchange details).

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?

No explicit guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies discovery of exchanges and their capabilities, but does not mention ccxt_describe_exchange for per-exchange details or ccxt_list_accounts for account-level info. There is no 'when to use' or 'when not to use' context.

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