discover_markets

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

Without annotations, the description carries full transparency burden. It discloses the self-healing discovery behavior, the optional application of the top result as active market ('for this session'), and the ability to surface new deployments. It does not detail error cases or authentication needs, but the core behavioral traits are well communicated.

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: the first distills the core functionality and key differentiators (self-healing, no code changes) in a single, information-dense sentence; the second describes the optional apply behavior. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 lack of an output schema and the tool's complexity (discovery with optional application), the description should clarify what the tool returns (e.g., the top subgraph details or confirmation). It mentions 'apply the top result' but does not specify return value or session persistence, leaving the agent with an incomplete picture.

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?

All three parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds value by explaining that chain and version can be omitted and that, if omitted, the highest-volume version is used. This provides practical semantics beyond the bare schema.

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 specific action ('Re-resolve') and resource ('best LIVE Uniswap subgraph(s) from The Graph's network subgraph, ranked by curation signal'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like list_markets by emphasizing self-healing discovery of new deployments without code changes, making the unique purpose unmistakable.

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 implies usage context (e.g., for dynamically discovering the best subgraph) and optionally applying it as active market, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_markets or find_pool. It lacks guidance on when not to use it or what prerequisites exist.

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