pro_get_market_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly explains that the tool returns configuration data (fees, status, etc.) and is marked as [PUBLIC], implying public access. It does not mention side effects, which are expected to be none, making the behavior transparent.

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 two sentences: the first states the function and outputs, the second gives usage guidance. It is front-loaded, concise, and every sentence adds value.

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 covers the tool's purpose, output components, and usage context. It lacks information about the effect of omitting the optional 'pair' parameter (i.e., whether it returns config for all markets). However, given the low complexity and no output schema, it is fairly complete.

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 coverage is 100% as the only parameter 'pair' has a description. The tool description does not add additional meaning to the parameter beyond what the schema already provides (filtering by trading pair). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb 'Gets' and resource 'market configuration', listing key components like precision, amounts, prices, fees, and trading status. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like pro_get_ticker or pro_get_order_book.

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 explicitly says 'Use this before placing orders to validate amounts, prices, and understand fee structure', providing clear context for when to use the tool. It does not mention when not to use it, but the guidance is sufficient for typical scenarios.

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