list_markets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds useful context such as 'live price' and 'whether it exists on chain yet', signaling that markets may be unlaunched and data is current. However, it does not mention ordering, pagination, data source, or explicit read-only status, though 'list' implies a read operation.

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 immediately states scope ('Every Cluby market') and then efficiently lists the returned data fields. There is no filler or duplicated schema content.

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?

For a simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description gives enough field-level detail for an agent to know what the response will contain. It falls slightly short of 5 by not addressing side-filtering behavior, though the schema covers the parameter itself.

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%, so the schema already documents the side parameter with its enum and default. The description does not mention side or how it filters results, so it adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. 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 names a specific verb and resource ('Every Cluby market') and enumerates the contained data: collateral, loan asset, liquidation LTV, live price, rates, and on-chain status. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling get_market, which is for a single market.

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 phrase 'Every Cluby market' implies this is the broad listing endpoint, and the sibling get_market hints at a more targeted alternative, but the description never explicitly says when to choose this over get_market or how the side parameter affects usage. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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