get_markets

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the transparency burden. It clearly discloses that this is a read-only operation returning 'active' markets, which implies filtering and no side effects. It doesn't mention any caveats like pagination or authentication, but for this simple getter, the behavior is well understood.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that includes the action, resource, and key details. Every part is relevant and it is concise without wasting words.

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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description provides sufficient context by specifying the content of the return data. It covers the essential information an agent needs to decide whether to use this tool.

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 has no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds context by listing return fields (leverage, fees, funding rates), which helps the agent understand what to expect, though it doesn't explain any parameter usage since none exist.

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 tool fetches all active trading markets and their configurations on Typus Perp, mentioning specific data types like leverage, fees, and funding rates. This aligns with a specific verb (Get) and resource (markets), and is distinct from sibling tools like get_positions or get_orders.

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 the tool is for retrieving market data when needed. While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, the purpose is clear enough to differentiate from other tools. In context of the sibling list, this is the only market-related getter, so usage context is evident.

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