Lends Get Market

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the token-address lookup scoping but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as behavior for unknown markets or return contents; this is consistent with the annotations, not contradictory.

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?

A single concise sentence contains the verb, resource, and identifying key with zero fluff. Every word earns its place and the core information is front-loaded.

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 the tool's low complexity (one required parameter), the read-only/idempotent annotations, and the clear 'read one market by token address' statement, nothing needed to invoke the tool correctly is missing. The absence of an output schema is acceptable because the purpose of a getter sufficiently implies the return.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly identifies the 'collateral' parameter as a token address, which adds semantic meaning beyond the raw regex pattern and property name. It does not exhaustively explain market semantics, but for a single-parameter read tool this is sufficient.

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 ('Read'), a singular resource ('one collateral market'), and the lookup key ('by token address'). This clearly distinguishes it from the plural sibling lends_get_markets, so an agent can tell them apart without inspecting schemas.

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 makes the selection context clear: use this tool when you need a single collateral market identified by a token address. It does not explicitly name lends_get_markets as the alternative for reading all markets, so it falls short of a full when/when-not statement, but the singular scope provides clear guidance.

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