cpu_get_markets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses 'Public read' (indicating a non-mutating operation), and explains that liveSaleFeePercent is 'enriched from the local world map — advisory, may trail the chain' and is 'null when the rate is unknown'. These are valuable behavioral caveats about data freshness and null semantics, though it does not mention pagination, rate limits, or error behavior.

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 three sentences and front-loaded with 'Scout the marketplace'. It efficiently covers the output structure, usage guidance, and important behavioral caveats in under 80 words. Each phrase adds value, though the density of details makes it slightly more information-rich than a simple two-sentence description would be.

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 there is no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return structure (one row per Hub/resource with counts, lowest price, distance, and fee) and the null/unknown fee behavior. It also covers all four parameters and provides usage recommendations, despite not mentioning ordering, pagination, or response size limits. This is complete enough for a read-only marketplace overview tool.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only a light relational grouping by calling aroundTokenId and radius an 'optional zone', but it does not deepen understanding beyond what the schema already provides. This is adequate but not exceptional.

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 it 'Scout[s] the marketplace' and specifies the exact output: one compact row per (Hub, resource) with open-vs-incoming lot counts, lowest price, distance, and live sale-fee percent. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool cpu_list_lots by positioning this as the first look and that as the drill-down, so there is no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 explicitly says it is 'The recommended first look at what is for sale and where' and advises to 'then drill into specific lots with cpu_list_lots'. This provides clear when-to-use context and names an alternative, satisfying the 5-level requirement for explicit guidance.

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