List Supported Venues

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds context that it is a free endpoint with no payment required, and lists the types of venues tracked. No contradictions.

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 with zero redundancy. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second provides examples and a note about cost. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 parameterless list endpoint with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns. It gives enough detail (types of venues, examples) for an agent to understand the response. No missing information.

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?

There are no parameters (schema has no properties). The description adds meaning by explaining the content of the catalog (CEX, DEX, etc.), which is valuable beyond the empty schema. Baseline 4 for 0 params.

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 identifies the tool as returning a catalog of perpetual futures venues, listing specific examples (CEX like Binance, Bybit; DEX like Hyperliquid, dYdX). It distinguishes from sibling tools, which deal with funding, spread, etc.

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 implies usage for obtaining the list of supported venues, but does not provide explicit when/not-to-use guidance or compare with sibling tools. Context from sibling names suggests differentiation, but the description itself lacks direct usage instructions.

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