List venues

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds genuinely new operational context: the required `trade:read` scope, a concrete rate limit (600 rpm, shared across the `default` group), and why the call is cheap (reads stored records rather than hitting a venue). This is exactly the kind of auth/rate-limit/cost disclosure that structured fields cannot convey.

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 short, front-loads what the tool returns, then layers on scope and rate limit. It is slightly repetitive in justifying cost twice ('which is why it costs trade:read' and 'which is why they are cheap'), which costs a point but does not obscure the content.

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 no output schema, the description must carry the return-value burden, and it does describe the shape at a high level (venue list plus per-venue key/plan state). It omits concrete field names or ordering, but for a parameterless read of this kind that is a minor gap.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate on the input side, and it correctly does not invent parameter detail.

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 states a concrete verb+resource (list venues) and goes further by spelling out the per-venue payload: whether keys are stored and whether the plan permits it. That is specific and unambiguous. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like list_instruments or get_venue_balances, so it lands just short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The description states a required scope and rate limit, but never tells the agent under what circumstances it should reach for list_venues rather than get_venue_balances or list_instruments, so usage must be inferred.

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