get_compound_market_info

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

Annotations confirm readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent. Description adds 'no wallet required' and details on returned fields (pause flags, collateral lists), providing full behavioral context without contradiction.

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?

Description is front-loaded with purpose and use cases. Each sentence adds value, though slightly verbose in listing return fields. Could be tightened without loss of clarity.

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?

Without an output schema, the description exhaustively enumerates return fields (metadata, APRs, collateral details), making the tool's output fully predictable. Covers all needed context for usage.

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?

Input schema already has 100% description coverage for both parameters. Description lists return fields but adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond the schema, meeting baseline expectation.

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?

Description clearly states 'Fetch structured market info for a single Compound V3 (Comet) market — no wallet required' and lists specific data returned, distinguishing from sibling tools like get_compound_positions which focus on user positions.

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?

Provides explicit use cases: 'explain market state', answer specific questions, and 'diagnose an incident'. Lacks explicit comparison to alternatives, but the use cases are clear and actionable.

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