cpu_get_markets

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses 'Public read' implying no auth, and mentions server clamping radius. However, lacks details on rate limits, pagination, or freshness of data. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 sentences with no fluff. Front-loaded with purpose and key details. Every sentence adds value—first describes output, second gives context and filters.

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?

Explains output structure ('compact row per (Hub, resource)...'), mentions filters, and references sibling for drill-down. Without an output schema, this is sufficient for a first-look tool. Could note read-only nature more explicitly.

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 coverage is 100%, but description adds meaning: explains the zone filter (aroundTokenId + radius), server clamping on radius, and that hub and resourceId are filters. This clarifies usage beyond the schema.

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 specifies the tool's verb ('Scout'), resource ('marketplace'), and output structure ('one compact row per (Hub, resource)...'). It contrasts with the sibling 'cpu_list_lots', making the purpose distinct.

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?

Clearly states 'recommended first look' and directs to 'cpu_list_lots' for drilling down. Lists supported filters (hub, resourceId, zone). Could mention when not to use (e.g., if needing lot-specific details), but the guidance is effective.

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