get_active_markets

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It describes the output contents (active pairs, gainers, losers, etc.) but omits important traits like authentication requirements (user watchlist implies a user context) or data freshness. The description is partially transparent but lacks behavioral details beyond the return value.

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 with no wasted words. It front-loads the core functionality and provides a practical use case in the second sentence. Every sentence adds value.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description must stand alone. It explains what the tool returns and its intended use. However, it lacks structural details about the output format that an agent might need to parse the result. Still, it is sufficient for invocation and basic understanding.

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 input schema has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage trivially. Per guidelines, 0 parameters sets a baseline of 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and no additional info is missing.

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 retrieves the most active Pear Protocol pair markets, listing specific categories (current active pairs, top gainers/losers, highlighted pairs, watchlist). This is a specific verb-resource combination and distinguishes from sibling 'list_markets' which likely lists all markets.

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 says 'Use to see what's hot or as a starting point for narrowing into a specific pair,' providing clear context on when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare directly with siblings like list_markets, which would fully ground the decision.

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