get_markets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It states the output includes live market data and that symbol filtering is optional, which is useful, but it does not mention whether the call is read-only, how results are ordered, pagination, or exact response shape. For a list, live data and safety profile are still under-specified.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core action and result content. The optional-filter nuance is a single sentence. Every word contributes useful information.

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 listing tool with no output schema, the description adequately enumerates the returned data: rates, deposits, borrows, prices. It does not mention that chain is required, but the schema's required field and enum cover that; the main missing piece is explicit guidance about the optional symbol filter's matching behavior.

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 the schema already explains chain and symbol. The description adds that symbol filtering is optional, but it does not add meaningful semantics beyond the schema's 'Filter by token symbol' description.

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 lists DorkFi lending markets and specifies the live data included: rates, deposits, borrows, and prices. It differentiates itself from siblings like get_position, get_health_factor, and deposit_txn by naming its resource as markets rather than a single position or transaction.

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 the primary use case: retrieving market data, optionally filtered by symbol. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as get_tvl or get_liquidation_candidates, so an agent must infer when this tool is preferred over others.

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