get_markets_info

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, but the description doesn't add behavioral context beyond this. It doesn't explain what 'destructive' means here or address rate limits, auth needs, or return format. No contradiction with annotations, but minimal value added.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, making it easy 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 annotations (e.g., destructiveHint=true) and lack of output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'markets parameter information' includes, how results are returned, or the implications of destructive behavior, leaving gaps for agent understanding.

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%, with the parameter 'pair' documented in the schema. The description mentions 'all supported markets' but doesn't add meaning beyond the schema, such as default behavior if 'pair' is omitted or examples of market pairs. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('all supported markets parameter information'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_ticker' or 'get_tickers', which also retrieve market-related data, leaving some ambiguity about scope.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_ticker' or 'get_tickers'. The description lacks context about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, offering minimal help for selection among siblings.

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