get_markets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds value by specifying the ranking method (by 24-hour volume) and the plan requirement, which are useful behavioral traits. However, it lacks details on rate limits, error handling, response format, or pagination behavior (beyond what's in the schema), leaving gaps in transparency for a tool with 9 parameters and no output schema.

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 concise and front-loaded, with three sentences that efficiently convey purpose, ranking, filter usage, and plan requirement. Each sentence adds value without redundancy. It could be slightly improved by structuring the plan requirement more prominently, but overall, it's well-sized and avoids waste.

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 complexity (9 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It covers purpose, ranking, and plan requirement, but lacks details on response format, error cases, or behavioral constraints like rate limits. Without an output schema, the description should ideally explain return values, which it doesn't, making it adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are well-documented in the input schema itself. The description does not add any specific parameter details beyond the general mention of filters, so it doesn't enhance semantics beyond what the schema provides. According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, which is appropriate here.

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: 'Get a list of markets' with the specific detail that 'Markets are ranked by their volume over the last 24 hours.' This provides a verb+resource combination and adds ranking context. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_market' (singular) or 'get_coin_markets,' which might serve similar purposes, so it doesn't reach a score of 5.

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 context by mentioning 'Use our filters to get a subset of the markets' and notes a plan requirement ('requires the **ultra** plan or higher'), which provides some guidance. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_market' or 'get_coin_markets,' nor does it detail exclusions or prerequisites beyond the plan, so it's not fully explicit.

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