list_markets

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses that this is a read-only browsing operation with optional filters and pagination, and lists returned data fields. It does not mention auth needs or side effects, but for a list tool this is adequate. Could be improved by noting default pagination behavior, but still transparent.

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 consists of two concise sentences. The first sentence defines the core purpose and data fields, the second gives usage guidance. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 8 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, filter usage, and returned fields. It mentions pagination but could be more detailed about default behavior. Considering sibling tools are more specialized, this description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 coverage is 100% with all parameters described. The description adds value by providing an example of the search parameter format ('L:BTC|S:ETH') and listing the key returned fields. This meaningfully supplements the schema descriptions.

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 verb 'browse' and resource 'Pear Protocol pair markets', specifying that it returns markets with fields like ratio, volume, etc. It differentiates from siblings by mentioning optional filters and pagination, making it distinct from more specific 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?

The description explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use to discover what's tradable, or with searchText to find a specific pair.' This provides clear context for selection. It does not mention when not to use it or compare to siblings, but the explicit usage scenarios earn a 4.

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