pendle_list_markets

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

No annotations provided, so description fully shoulders behavioral disclosure. It explains the tool is a read-only listing (no mutations), notes that Merkl campaigns are 'fetched best-effort per chain', and describes the nature of Pendle markets (AMM with time-decay pricing, incentive tokens). No contradictions.

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?

Description is lengthy but well-structured: starts with core purpose, then adds context (Pendle vs Spectra), return fields, chain lists, Merkl info, and sibling tool references. It is front-loaded with essential information. Some redundancy could be trimmed, but overall efficient for the complexity.

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?

Given 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is comprehensive: explains return fields, chain lists, Merkl APR, and cross-protocol use cases. It does not detail output format (e.g., JSON structure), but parameter descriptions and return list are sufficient for an agent to understand the output.

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% with detailed parameter descriptions. The description adds meaningful context beyond schema, such as the full list of supported chains (including which overlap with Spectra) and the meaning of 'asset_filter' (matches against market name). While baseline is 3, the extra contextualization merits a 4.

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?

Description clearly states 'List active Pendle markets on a given chain, or scan all Pendle-supported chains.' and lists specific return fields (market name, implied APY, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools by explaining Pendle's role relative to Spectra and directing to other tools for specific use cases.

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?

Explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives: 'Use mv_compare_yield to do a head-to-head comparison...', 'Use mv_scan_curator_opportunities for unified cross-protocol ranking...', and 'Use spectra_scan_opportunities for Spectra-native opportunity ranking.' Also explains the tool's role in building MetaVaults.

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