List markets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the exact ticker fields returned per market (last, 24h change, 24h quote volume, best bid/ask), which matters because there is no output schema. It does not disclose ordering, rate limits, or how paging interacts with filtering.

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?

Two tight sentences: the first front-loads what is listed and what each row contains, the second covers filtering and paging. No filler, no redundancy.

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 adequately compensates by naming the returned ticker fields, and annotations cover the safety profile. Minor gaps remain around result ordering, the meaning of status values, and how many markets exist overall, but nothing blocks a correct call.

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 80%, so the schema already documents limit, quote, offset and search precisely; the description adds only a grouped restatement ("filter by quote asset, status or search text; page with offset"). It never mentions the limit parameter, its default, or the status enum values, so it adds little beyond 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Lists CEXY.io spot markets") and even summarizes the payload it returns (last price, 24h change, volume, best bid/ask). It separates itself from data-fetching siblings like get_ticker/get_orderbook by framing itself as a market-list, but never explicitly contrasts with the singular get_market, leaving that distinction to the name.

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?

"Filter by quote asset, status or search text; page with offset" tells the agent how the filters combine, which implies when to reach for this tool (browse/filter markets). It gives no explicit when-not guidance, no alternative tool named, and no note on default ordering or whether filtering is server-side, so usage is inferred rather than stated.

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