HIP-3 markets list & cross-DEX market comparison

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety bar is low. The description adds substantive behavioral detail the annotations cannot convey: what each branch returns (market table columns vs per-DEX OI/DAU/volume/spread/slippage plus trimmed history), and how `days` bounds comparison history. It omits pagination/rate-limit behavior, so not a 5.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the resource then the mode split then the routing hint; the parenthetical field lists are information-dense rather than padding. Slightly packed, but essentially every clause carries signal.

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?

With no output schema, the description properly compensates by enumerating the returned fields for both modes. Combined with the 100%-covered schema and safety annotations, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only edge details (empty-result handling, pagination interplay with limit/offset) are left implicit.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond it: it gives concrete `symbol` examples ('TSLA', 'GOLD'), explains that the value is a canonical underlying, and clarifies the mode-switching semantics of `symbol` plus the trimming role of `days`. The dex/assetClass/search filters are mentioned as available filters.

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 the resource (HIP-3 market tables) and immediately splits into two explicitly-scoped modes based on `symbol` absence/presence, naming the exact columns returned in each. An agent can distinguish it from flowscan_hip3_dex, flowscan_hip4_markets, and flowscan_perp_markets without inspecting any schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'Prefer this to compare one underlying across HIP-3 DEXs', and names flowscan_perp_markets ('xyz:TSLA') for live positioning and flowscan_hip3_binance_comparison for Binance data. This is a textbook when-to-use-this-vs-alternatives statement.

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