market

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description's main addition is 'no credentials required', which is a useful behavioral detail. This does not contradict any annotation, but it lacks depth about rate limits, pagination, or potential response size.

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 sentence but contains the placeholder '[VERB]', which is an incomplete structural artifact. This undermines usability and indicates a lack of finalization, despite the otherwise concise length.

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?

With 13 parameters, 16 action options, and no output schema, the description is far too sparse. It lists data types (tickers, orderbook, candles, etc.) but does not explain how to choose actions, what the response structure looks like, or how view/limit affect output. The description fails to adequately cover the tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 100%, and the input schema already provides detailed descriptions for all parameters. The description itself adds no parameter-specific semantics, so it meets the baseline without going beyond.

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 uses a placeholder verb '[VERB]' instead of a specific action, making it unclear whether the tool fetches, lists, or queries data. The resource 'Public market data' is clear, but the lack of a proper verb reduces purpose clarity to a noun phrase rather than a command.

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 given on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'order', 'position', or 'account_overview'. The only usage hint is 'no credentials required', which implies public data access but does not state exclusions or alternatives.

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