List Markets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it is the canonical discovery tool, returns the full market set with specific fields, and shares data with pulse_market_overview. No contradictions or hidden side effects are present.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core function, then gives trigger examples and sibling routing. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no fluff or redundant restating of the title.

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 two-optional-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it names the return fields, states when to use it, and routes to alternatives. Nothing needed for correct selection or invocation is missing.

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%, and both parameters have clear descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not add much parameter-level meaning beyond reinforcing that dexes cover builder-dex markets and that commodities/stocks are relevant use cases, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Returns every trading symbol on Hyperliquid and its builder dexes' with the exact data fields included. It also distinguishes itself from pulse_market_overview and list_assets, making it easy for an agent to select this tool over near-named siblings.

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 gives explicit trigger conditions ('whenever the user asks what markets are available?, mentions a commodity, stock, or builder-dex market') and names alternatives with routing guidance: prefer over pulse_market_overview for backward compatibility, use list_assets for asset-level grouping. This is clear, actionable, and complete.

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