get_markets_liquidity

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 usefully adds that data is fetched 'directly from the EVM blockchain' and that liquidity filtering occurs, but it does not explain what 'available liquidity' means, whether results are paginated, or what the return format is. This is adequate but not rich.

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, efficient sentence with no filler or redundancy. It front-loads the core action and resource, then adds the filtering behavior and data source.

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?

For a simple read-only listing tool with one optional parameter, the description is mostly sufficient, but it leaves the exact meaning of 'available liquidity' unclear and provides no return-shape information despite there being no output schema. An agent could call it correctly, but might misjudge what results are returned.

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 covers 100% of the single parameter assetSymbol, including its optionality and examples. The description itself does not mention this parameter, but the schema already documents it, so the baseline of 3 applies. No additional semantic value is added 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Fetches'), a clear resource ('all Citadelle options markets'), and a distinct source ('directly from the EVM blockchain'). It also states the selection criterion ('filters them by available liquidity'), which clearly differentiates this tool from the sibling tools get_wallet_portfolio and generate_trade_link.

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 when to use the tool—when market liquidity data is needed—but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it. The sibling tools are clearly different in purpose, but no direct routing guidance is provided.

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