List Markets

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses important behavior: only active markets are returned, delisted/settled markets are excluded, results are sorted by volume or OI, and the response contains specific keys including pagination fields. This gives the agent a clear model of the tool's runtime behavior without relying on inference.

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 compact and front-loaded: it opens with the resource and key fields, then details output structure, filtering behavior, and pagination, and closes with a concrete example. Every sentence adds useful information; there is no filler or repetition.

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?

The description is complete for this tool's complexity: it covers parameters, return structure, default behavior, filtering, pagination, and includes a call example. The output schema exists, but the description still summarizes the response shape, making the tool self-contained for an agent evaluating 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?

The schema has 0% parameter description coverage, but the description fully compensates: it explains 'sort' values ('volume' default, 'oi' for open interest), demonstrates 'limit' with an example, and explains 'offset' in the pagination context. This adds real meaning beyond the raw enum/default values in the 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 names a specific resource ('All dYdX v4 perpetual markets') and lists the exact fields returned (oracle price, 24h volume, open interest, next funding rate). It clearly differentiates this as a market list endpoint with sorting and pagination, so an agent knows what it does and how it differs from a single-market tool like market_detail.

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 gives practical usage guidance: default sort by 24h USD volume, optional 'oi' sort, pagination via offset when has_more is true, and an explicit call example. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is clear enough for correct selection among the sibling tools.

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