Get HoodGrow market movers

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description richly explains data provenance (Chainlink on-chain feeds, not off-chain aggregator), refresh cadence, snapshot semantics, observedAt age, priceSource fallback behavior, and Morpho/Uniswap pool state. It also discloses cost and API-key access, which is valuable operational context.

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 longer than average but every sentence adds substantive detail about data quality, freshness, or usage constraints. Information is front-loaded with the core behavior and then supports it with source/refresh details. It is dense yet well-organized.

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 the simple parameter set and annotations, the description is unusually thorough. It explains edge cases (empty lists on flat markets), pricing/access, return snapshot timing, and fallback semantics. Even without an output schema, an agent can predict the response shape and meaning well.

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 already documents limit with its range and default, so the description adds little for this parameter. The added detail that the limit applies to 'each list' is helpful, but it is largely a restatement of the schema description provided with the parameter.

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 opens with a specific resource and scope: 'Market movers across the Robinhood Chain stock-token catalog,' and enumerates exactly what is included (gainers/losers by 24h change, top swap volume, Uniswap V3 liquidity). This clearly differentiates get_markets from sibling tools like get_token or get_catalog.

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 clear context for when this tool is relevant—looking at aggregated market moving data rather than individual tokens or corporate actions. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the offered behavior and data types make the intended use fairly obvious.

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