list_markets

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

No annotations, so description carries full burden. Describes it as read-only (browse, discover) and lists return fields. However, pagination behavior (default page size, maximum) and rate limits are not disclosed. Could be more explicit about response structure.

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?

Two sentences front-load purpose and fields, second sentence gives usage advice. No wasted words, 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 output schema, description lists key fields returned (ratio, change, volume, etc.) and mentions pagination. Missing details like response envelope or total count, but sufficient for a list tool. Parameters are all optional, which is clear from schema.

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 has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions. Description adds context for search parameter ('searchText') and general filter purpose, but does not explain constraints like page being 1-indexed or default values. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states verb 'browse' and resource 'markets', listing key fields. Distinguishes from siblings that are mostly actions on positions/orders, but does not explicitly mention related sibling tools like get_active_markets or get_pair_ratio.

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?

Provides usage guidance: 'Use to discover what's tradable, or with searchText to find a specific pair.' However, does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives, such as get_active_markets for only active markets.

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