search_markets

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Adds valuable behavioral context by disclosing data source ('from subgraphs') and return composition ('metadata enriched with on-chain volume and trade counts'). However, lacks operational details like rate limits, pagination cursors, or caching behavior that would be necessary for complete transparency without annotation support.

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 with zero waste. First sentence front-loads the action and scope; second sentence clarifies return value. Every word earns its place.

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 3-parameter search tool with 100% schema coverage but no output schema, the description adequately compensates by describing return values ('market metadata enriched...'). Missing only pagination strategy details (cursor vs offset) which would be helpful given 'first' implies limit-based pagination.

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 description coverage is 100%, so schema fully documents all three parameters. Description mentions 'keyword or category' which maps to the parameter intent, but adds no syntax guidance, validation rules, or semantic relationships beyond what the schema properties already provide. Baseline 3 appropriate when schema does heavy lifting.

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?

Clear verb 'Search' and resource 'markets' with specific scope 'by keyword or category'. Distinguishes from siblings like get_market_analytics or get_market_trades by implying discovery/finding functionality rather than retrieval of specific known entities, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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?

Implies usage through 'Search markets by keyword or category' but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance versus alternatives like query_subgraph (raw graph access) or get_market_analytics (specific market data). No mention of prerequisites or exclusions.

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