list_marketsRetrieve a list of implemented markets and their verification status. Use this for status checks, not live health monitoring.
List implemented markets and verification status; this is not a live health probe.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| markets | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by clarifying that the result reflects implemented markets and verification status rather than a live health check.
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 compact sentence with the primary purpose front-loaded and the key caveat attached efficiently. There is no filler or redundant restatement.
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 zero parameters, read-only annotations, and an existing output schema, the description includes enough to call the tool correctly and avoid one major misuse. It could be slightly richer about what 'markets' means in context, but no essential calling information is missing.
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 has zero parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to compensate for. The baseline score for a no-parameter tool is appropriate.
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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'List implemented markets and verification status.' This is clear enough for an agent to know what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from any sibling by name or function.
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 clause 'this is not a live health probe' provides a useful usage boundary by ruling out a likely misinterpretation. It does not state positive when-to-use conditions or name alternatives, so it stops short of full routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.