get_exchange_markets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the effect of active_only parameter and details the return structure including fields like symbol, base, quote, settle, type, etc. This is transparent for a listing tool, though it omits potential authentication or rate limit implications.

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 and well-structured: purpose sentence, usage example, Args section with both parameters explained, and Returns section with object shape. No redundant information, and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity, no output schema (but return described fully), and absence of annotations, the description is complete. It covers purpose, parameters, return type, and usage context, leaving no critical gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 defines two parameters (exchange_id, active_only). The description adds significant value: for exchange_id, it specifies 'CCXT exchange ID (lowercase)' and refers to list_supported_exchanges; for active_only, it explains 'If true, exclude delisted/inactive markets.' This goes well 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 clearly states the verb 'List' and resource 'trading pairs (markets) supported by a specific exchange.' It distinguishes from siblings like get_exchange_info (exchange metadata) and get_exchange_ticker (ticker prices) by focusing on market list discovery.

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 explicit usage context: 'Use to discover what symbols an exchange trades... or to enumerate available perpetual contracts.' It also references list_supported_exchanges for valid exchange IDs. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare to alternatives like get_exchange_ticker.

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