list_boards

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the responsibility for behavioral disclosure. 'List' implies a read-only operation, which is transparent about the core behavior, but it does not mention any permissions, rate limits, output format, or other side effects. For a simple list operation this is minimally sufficient but not comprehensive.

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 short sentence that front-loads the action and object. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no redundant or filler 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?

The tool is simple with two optional parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects. The description tells the agent what it returns (trading boards) and the key context (engine and market). It is mostly complete for this low-complexity tool, though the exact structure of a board is not described.

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 input schema already provides descriptions and defaults for both engine and market, yielding 100% schema coverage. The description's phrase 'given engine and market' merely echoes the schema without adding new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema handles the documentation burden.

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 uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('trading boards') with qualifiers ('for a given engine and market'), making the purpose clear. It doesn't explicitly name sibling tools like list_markets, but the scope is distinct enough that an agent can infer what this tool does.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_markets or get_market_data. The description implies that engine and market are needed, but does not state conditions, exclusions, or relationships to sibling tools.

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