gryps_list_markets

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

No annotations are provided. The description mentions that fees and leverage are live venue data, but does not disclose other behavioral traits like rate limits, data freshness guarantees, or authentication requirements. The description is neutral but lacks detail.

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: first states the core purpose, second adds filtering and data nature. No unnecessary words. Front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Adequate for a list tool with no output schema. Missing details on pagination (how limit works, default), sorting, and response structure. With no annotations, more behavioral context would be helpful.

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 description coverage is 67% (rfqOnly and category have descriptions, limit does not). The description adds value by giving examples for category ('Commodities', 'Stocks', 'RWA') and indicating that fees/leverage are live data. This supplements the schema well.

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 clearly states it lists live Gryps markets, with filtering options. It distinguishes from siblings like gryps_get_market (single market) and gryps_venue_liveness (venue status), so purpose is specific and differentiated.

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 implies usage for listing markets with filters, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like gryps_get_market or gryps_venue_liveness. No exclusion criteria or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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