markets

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden and delivers almost nothing: it does not confirm this is a read-only listing, whether results are cached, whether network calls to exchange APIs occur (relevant for a ccxt-backed tool), or what the cost of calling is. The only real disclosure is that the set is build-dependent ('reachable from this build'), which is genuinely useful but isolated.

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?

A single clause with no padding, so nothing is wasted — but the brevity is under-specification rather than economy. There is no front-loaded verb or scope statement to anchor the sentence.

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?

Four parameters, one required enum, no annotations and no output schema — this definition is drastically under-served. An agent cannot tell what a returned 'venue' record looks like or how to combine asset_class with the boolean filters, and the equity half of the enum is only referenced obliquely in the schema text.

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 25%, so only asset_class is documented structurally; the description's 'native connector or ccxt' is the sole hint that ccxt_only and native_only are mutually meaningful filters. The search parameter is never mentioned, and the interaction between the two boolean flags (are they mutually exclusive?) is left entirely unexplained.

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 phrase 'Every venue reachable from this build' implies an enumeration of markets but supplies no verb (list? fetch data? resolve?) and no statement of what is returned. Siblings like list-exchanges, catalog-exchanges, universe and search make it impossible to tell from the text how this differs; 'venue' is never reconciled with the sibling vocabulary of 'exchanges' or 'symbols'.

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?

'native connector or ccxt' gestures at the ccxt_only/native_only switch but gives no guidance on when to call this versus list-exchanges, catalog-exchanges or universe. There are no exclusions, no prerequisites, and no note on what a caller should do with the result.

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