get_markets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a meaningful trait – no authentication required for public market data – plus an exchange-specific limitation, but it says nothing about result volume, pagination, rate limits, or response structure for a list-returning tool.

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?

Three short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. The trailing Hyperliquid fragment is terse and slightly cryptic ('via the CLI --dex') but does not waste space.

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 one-parameter, read-only market-data tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what is returned, the auth posture, and one exchange-specific constraint. Missing only return-count/pagination expectations and any sibling routing, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 schema already documents the single exchange parameter at 100% coverage, which sets the baseline at 3, but the description adds real semantics by noting that behavior varies with the exchange value (Hyperliquid returns native perps only; HIP-3 dexes require the CLI --dex). That is meaningful guidance beyond the schema's alias list.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Get all available perpetual futures markets on an exchange') and enumerates the payload ('price, funding rate, volume, and max leverage'). That enumeration implicitly separates it from siblings such as get_prices, get_funding_rates, and get_orderbook, which return only one of these slices.

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?

It states useful context for when this tool applies ('Works without API keys (public market data)') and a caveat for a specific exchange ('Hyperliquid: native perps only'), but it never names an alternative tool or says when NOT to use it. Usage is implied rather than routed.

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