List Strike markets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and external-data characteristics are covered structurally. The description adds return-content detail (funding quoted as APR) which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about default page size (limit=50), pagination limits, or whether inactive markets are silently excluded.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then the use case. No redundancy and nothing wasted.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what comes back and why to call it. The notable gap is that the undocumented limit and include_inactive parameters affect result shape and pagination, which an agent would need to know.

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 50%: sort_by and category are documented, but limit and include_inactive are undocumented in both schema and description. The description's ranking hints ('top movers, highest funding') loosely map to sort_by values but never explain limit or include_inactive, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap. Baseline 3.

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 ('Lists') and resource ('every Strike perpetual market') and enumerates the returned data (price, 24h change, volume, open interest, funding as APR). The scope word 'every' implicitly contrasts with strike_market_snapshot, so an agent can distinguish them without opening schemas.

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?

Gives clear usage contexts: discovering symbols, ranking markets, top movers, most traded, highest funding. It never names an alternative tool or states when not to use this one, so it stops short of a 5.

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