List every market and HIP-3 exchange

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine scope context (~the result set includes HIP-3 perp DEXes, not just standard perps), but says nothing about result size, truncation, or pagination behavior beyond what the schema's limit field implies.

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 the core purpose and scope, with the usage cue at the end. Minimal waste, though the parenthetical category list duplicates the enum without adding value.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining what comes back. It names the two entity types returned but not the identifying fields (ticker, market id, category) an agent needs to chain into snapshot or history tools, leaving a meaningful gap for a discovery tool.

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 67%: limit and search are documented with defaults and examples in the schema, while category is a bare enum. The description merely echoes the enum values ('crypto, stocks, indices, commodities, fx') without adding meaning such as matching semantics or case sensitivity, so it stays at the baseline.

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 and resource ('lists every tradable perp market') plus the extra HIP-3 exchange coverage, which is more than a restatement of the name. It does not explicitly contrast with the closest sibling, hydromancer_market_snapshot, so an agent must infer that this is the enumeration tool rather than a single-market lookup.

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?

'Use when unsure of a market's exact name' gives a clear selection context: it is the discovery step before calling a market-specific tool. There is no explicit when-not or a named alternative, which keeps it 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.