get_market_and_price_endpoints

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what data is retrieved but lacks details on how the tool behaves: e.g., whether it returns a list, pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. The description is informative about content but misses operational traits, which is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 run-on sentence that lists numerous data types in a dense, unstructured manner. While it front-loads the core purpose ('Get all endpoints...'), the extensive enumeration of examples (e.g., 'stablecoin market analytics', 'perpetual futures funding rates') adds verbosity without clear organization, making it less efficient and harder to parse quickly.

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?

Given the complexity implied by the broad data scope and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It details what data is included but omits critical behavioral aspects (e.g., return format, pagination, errors) and doesn't address how to use the retrieved endpoints. For a tool with no structured support fields, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its practical use.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately adds no parameter details, as there are none to explain. This meets the baseline for a parameterless tool, though it doesn't compensate for any gaps since none exist.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Get all endpoints in the "Market Data and Price" category.' It specifies the resource (endpoints) and category scope, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_api_endpoint_schema' or 'get_search_discovery_endpoints' beyond the category name. The detailed list of included data types (e.g., cryptocurrency prices, market caps) adds specificity but doesn't directly contrast with other tools.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lists what the tool retrieves but doesn't mention when to choose it over siblings like 'get_api_endpoint_schema' (for schema details) or 'get_search_discovery_endpoints' (for search-related endpoints). There's no explicit context, exclusions, or prerequisites stated, leaving usage decisions unclear.

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