get_all_market_pairs

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool returns a list of pairs with symbols, availability, and trading parameters. It does not disclose potential behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, or whether it is a read-only operation. Adequate but not thorough.

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 concise with clear sections (Description, Args, Returns). It front-loads the main purpose and is efficient with no wasted words. Could be slightly more structured but overall good.

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?

Despite missing parameter descriptions in schema, the description covers both parameters and the return value. With an output schema present, the return summary is sufficient. The tool has 2 optional parameters, so the description is fairly complete for its complexity.

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 0%, so the description compensates by explaining both parameters: 'market_code' as optional market filter and 'response_filter' for detail level. It adds meaning beyond the schema's empty descriptions, though it could be more precise (e.g., what values for response_filter).

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 tool's purpose: 'Get all available trading pairs across markets.' It specifies a verb ('Get') and resource ('trading pairs'), and includes an optional market filter. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_supported_markets' which returns markets, not pairs.

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 lists parameters but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives. No 'when not to use' or mention of other tools like 'get_supported_markets' for filtering by market. Usage is implied but not explicit.

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