Lends Get Markets

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

Annotations already disclose the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive nature of the call. The description adds useful context about what is returned, but it does not describe ordering, freshness, external oracle behavior, or whether the list is filtered by protocol state. With annotations carrying the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The verb and resource come first, and the output scope is expressed in an economical prepositional phrase.

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 zero-parameter list tool, the description is almost complete: it states the resource and the fields an agent can expect. The absence of an output schema means a bit more detail about the returned shape would help, but this is a minor gap for a simple no-argument read.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter documentation burden. The description's reference to 'configured collateral markets' clarifies scope but is not required for parameter semantics; baseline 4 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?

The description names a specific action ('List') and resource ('configured collateral markets'), and specifies the included content ('risk parameters and oracle state'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like lends_get_market, which targets a single market.

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 gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as lends_get_market or lends_get_protocol_state. It does not state explicit use cases or exclusions, so an agent must rely on tool naming alone to pick among the read-only market/protocol tools.

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