Related markets in the same category and chain

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety and idempotency profile. The description adds only 'canonical discovery set', with no mention of pagination, result ordering, or behavior when no related markets exist; an output schema exists, so return-shape disclosure is not required.

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 short sentences, scope front-loaded in the first. Both sentences carry information (scope, then usage), though the second is vague enough to be of limited 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?

With a rich schema, full annotations and an output schema present, the definition covers the essentials for a read-only discovery tool. The one gap is not clarifying its relationship to the broader problee_list_markets sibling.

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 address, chainId and limit are already fully documented with bounds and patterns. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, which is the expected 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 (List) and resource (related markets) with the scoping constraint 'same category and chain' and labels it the 'canonical discovery set'. However, it does not differentiate itself from the very similar sibling problee_list_markets, leaving the agent to infer when this narrower discovery set is preferable.

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 phrase 'Useful for context around a market before trading or creating' implies a usage context but gives no explicit when/when-not and names no alternative tool. It is implied guidance rather than routing.

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