Markets

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

Annotations already establish the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower, and the description adds real content disclosure: restrictions, per-market exchange/currency/time zone, and which thndr-mcp features work in each market. It does not mention auth requirements or caching/rate behavior, but it substantially exceeds the annotation coverage.

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?

It is front-loaded with what the tool returns, then closes with the actionable usage sentence. The parenthetical examples are dense but each one earns its place by telling the agent which features are region-restricted; the only cost is a slightly packed first sentence.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return-value burden, and it does: markets, default, restrictions, exchange, currency, time zone, and feature availability are all enumerated. An agent can call this and know what it will receive without further documentation.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a 0-param tool applies. Nothing in the description misrepresents or omits parameter behavior.

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 the specific resource (Thndr markets available to the account) and enumerates exactly what is returned: the set of markets, the default, restrictions, and per-market exchange/currency/time zone. It is immediately distinguishable from data-fetching siblings like get_market_status or get_market_movers because it describes account-scoped metadata about where those tools apply.

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?

It gives a clear call-to-action ("Call it to learn where a tool applies") and even supplies concrete routing examples — order book, candles and financials are Egypt-only; movers are Egypt and US. That is strong context for choosing region-scoped tools, but no explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative is stated.

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