Market Overview

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

The description goes beyond annotations by disclosing that the tool is deprecated, behaves as an alias, and returns the same payload as list_markets. This is valuable behavioral context that the agent cannot infer from the schema or annotations alone.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the deprecation, names the replacement, describes the payload, and states the intended use. There is no wasted text.

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 list-style tool with rich annotations and fully documented optional parameters, the description is complete. It conveys deprecation status, payload contents, and the relationship to list_markets, which is all an agent needs to call or avoid this tool 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%, so both parameters (dex and useToonFormat) are already fully documented in the schema. The description does not add parameter-level detail, and baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the weight.

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 the tool is a deprecated alias for list_markets and specifies exactly what payload it returns (24h volume, open interest, mark price, funding rate, 24h change for every pair). This clearly identifies the resource and distinguishes it from siblings, especially list_markets.

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 explicitly says to prefer list_markets for new integrations and that this tool is kept for backward compatibility only. This provides clear when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance, leaving no inference burden on the agent.

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