List GPU markets

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

Annotations already establish the operation is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral detail: prices include network fee and match deploy.nosana.com, idle hosts are current, and template-fit filtering only applies when a template is supplied. No contradiction with annotations.

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 entire description isone sentence that front-loads the output fields and key caveats (network fee, current availability, conditional template fit). There is no filler or duplication of schema content.

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 read-only list tool, the description covers the main output shape and the conditional template behavior, and annotations cover safety.It omits any mention of the variant parameter and does not describe queue/community result effects, leaving some reliance on input-schema descriptions; still adequate for selection and invocation.

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 80%, so the schema already documents four of five parameters and the description reinforces the template behavior. The variant parameter has no schema description and is not explained in the description, so there is a small remaining semantic gap; the description adds context but does not carry the parameter documentation burden.

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 names the resource (GPU markets) and the exact fields returned (price per hour, idle hosts, VRAM, template fit), so an agent knows what the tool does. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_templates or estimate_deployment, so it is clear but not a 5.

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 when the tool is useful — for checking current GPU pricing, availability, and template compatibility — and the schema adds that include_queue is slower and include_community broadens the market set. It never states when to prefer this over sibling tools or when not to use it, so usage guidance is largely implicit.

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