list_markets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, but as a zero-parameter listing operation its behavioral surface is small. It implies a safe read and mentions that markets map to 'statistics pages', yet says nothing about pagination, coverage limits, or whether results are static. Adequate but thin.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It could be marginally tighter, but every clause contributes scope information about what is returned.

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 no-argument discovery tool with an output schema that documents the return shape, the description supplies enough to call it correctly. The only gap is the absence of context on how the listed markets connect to the sibling trade tools.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline of 4 applies; no parameter meaning 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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('IME markets covered by this server'), which is clearly distinct from the trade-oriented siblings. The trailing clause about 'statistics pages' is slightly ambiguous but adds scope information. No explicit sibling differentiation, but the resource itself separates it.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this tool versus the sibling search/get tools, nor any stated prerequisites or follow-ups after discovering a market. The agent must infer that this is a discovery entry point.

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