get_spot_markets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the tool is a read-only market overview by describing returned data fields, which implies non-destructive operation. However, it does not mention potential latency, authentication requirements, or clarify that 'gainers' and 'losers' likely sort by price change (a subtle behavioral nuance). The description covers the main surface behavior but lacks deeper caveats.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose ('Overview of Hyperliquid spot markets') and immediately specifies included tokens and data fields. It then lists sort options, which directly mirrors the schema. Every sentence provides useful information with no filler or repetition.

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?

The tool is a straightforward read-only market overview with no output schema or nested objects. The description includes the key output fields (price, 24h change, 24h volume, market cap) and sort behavior, which is sufficient for basic use. It could be more explicit about the default sort order and whether all spot markets are always included, but overall it delivers the necessary context for a simple tool.

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%: both parameters (sort and limit) have descriptive text and the sort parameter has an enum. The description repeats the sort options but does not add meaning beyond the schema—e.g., it does not clarify how 'change' differs from 'gainers/losers' or whether sort order is ascending/descending. Since the schema already provides adequate detail, the description adds no additional param semantics.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: it provides an overview of Hyperliquid spot markets, listing specific token categories (HYPE, PURR, HIP-1 tokens) and the data fields returned (price, 24h change, volume, market cap). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_perp_markets by explicitly targeting spot markets, making the purpose and scope unambiguous.

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 this tool (when needing spot market overview data) and differentiates from perpetual markets by saying 'spot markets'. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it over get_perp_markets for spot data. The sort options provide further usage context.

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