SMX: list markets

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value beyond them: the on-chain source, consistency with the agent API listing rules, that it is free/no-key, and that the USDC is testnet with no monetary value. It does not disclose pagination or result limits, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loads the core action and scope, then enumerates returned fields — each sentence carries information, especially the field list, which is needed since there is no output schema. Slightly dense, but nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by enumerating the per-market fields (id, title, state, status, outcome, bid/ask, YES midpoint in bps, minimum order) plus the bps unit convention. Combined with annotations covering safety, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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% and the single parameter include_unlisted is fully documented there. The description adds no syntax or default information for it, so the schema does the heavy lifting and the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource ('List SMX event markets') and pins the exact data source (on-chain MarketRegistry on Base Sepolia). The 'Free, no key' clause implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling smx_paid_list_markets, so an agent can route without opening a schema.

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?

Gives clear usage context: free, no key required, testnet, no monetary value, and listing rules matching the SMX agent API. It does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., smx_get_market for a single market, or the paid variants), so no exclusions are stated, but the practical context is unambiguous.

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