List Markets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds value by disclosing the exact field set returned and the scope (native + builder dexes), though it omits pagination/result-size behavior for a potentially large list.

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?

Front-loaded with the canonical designation, then scope, then return fields, then usage triggers and the alternative. Three dense sentences with little waste, though the CLAIMANT-style emphasis and the trigger list make it slightly longer than strictly necessary.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields and the market universe covered. It stops short of describing pagination or result limits for a 'returns every symbol' tool, but is otherwise complete enough to invoke correctly.

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 (dex enum, useToonFormat) are documented in the schema, so the description need not repeat them. It does not add syntax or filtering semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (list/returns) and resource (every trading symbol on Hyperliquid and its builder dexes) and enumerates the returned fields (mark price, 24h volume, funding rate, OI, 24h change). It explicitly distinguishes itself as the CANONICAL discovery tool versus list_assets for asset-level grouping.

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?

Gives concrete triggers ('what markets are available?', mentions of commodities, stocks, or builder-dex markets) and names the alternative sibling (list_assets) with the condition that selects it. Both when-to-use and when-to-use-something-else are covered.

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