PCM

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Set default market type for all exchanges' implies a system-wide configuration change, but doesn't mention permission requirements, whether changes are reversible, potential rate limits, or how this affects existing trading operations. The description is insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with two parameters and gets straight to the point with zero wasted text.

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 mutation tool that changes system-wide exchange settings with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after setting the market type, whether the change is persistent, what errors might occur, or how to verify the change was applied. The context signals indicate this is a significant configuration operation that needs more explanation.

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 both parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema (marketType enum values, clearCache default behavior). This meets the baseline expectation when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the action ('Set') and resource ('default market type for all exchanges'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'set-leverage' or 'set-margin-mode' which also configure exchange settings, leaving room for potential confusion about when to choose this specific tool.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get-market-types' (for reading) or other configuration tools. It lacks context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or scenarios where this tool would be preferred over other market-related operations.

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