get_exchange_markets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions a plan requirement ('ultra' plan or higher), which is useful context about access control. However, it lacks details on rate limits, error handling, pagination behavior (implied by limit/offset but not explained), or what the response format looks like, leaving significant gaps for a tool with 6 parameters.

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 appropriately sized with three sentences: the core purpose, a usage example with a link, and a plan requirement. Each sentence adds value without redundancy. It could be slightly more front-loaded by emphasizing the plan requirement earlier, but overall it's efficient and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format, pagination behavior, or error cases, which are critical for an agent to use it correctly. The plan requirement is helpful, but more behavioral context is needed to compensate for the lack of structured data.

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 schema already documents all parameters thoroughly with defaults, ranges, and allowed values. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining how 'uuid' relates to exchanges or the impact of 'referenceCurrencyUuid.' This meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 states the tool's purpose: 'Find markets on a specific exchange.' It specifies the verb ('find') and resource ('markets on a specific exchange'), making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_markets' or 'get_coin_markets,' which might cause confusion about scope.

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 provides some usage context by mentioning it's used on an exchange markets page and requires an 'ultra' plan or higher, which implies when to use it based on access level. However, it doesn't offer explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'get_markets' or 'get_coin_markets,' leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.

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