cpu_get_markets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does an excellent job: it discloses liveSaleFeePercent is advisory and may trail the chain, explains null semantics, clarifies that buckets count open/incoming/frozen offers, and states evicted lots are excluded. It also declares the read is public, covering safety without annotation support.

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 dense but well front-loaded: it opens with the core purpose, then covers caveats, routing, and bucket semantics. The first sentence is very long and packs many details into one parenthetical-heavy clause, but every sentence earns its place and nothing is fluff.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description compensates thoroughly by describing the row shape, key returned fields, filter/zone behavior, data-freshness caveats, and relationship to sibling tools. An agent has enough context to invoke the tool correctly with no arguments or with filters.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds some context by grouping hub/resourceId as filters and mentioning the optional zone (aroundTokenId + radius in grid steps), but this mostly restates schema information rather than introducing materially new parameter semantics.

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 scouts the marketplace, enumerates the exact per-row fields (lot counts, lowest price, distance, sale-fee percent), and explicitly contrasts it with cpu_list_lots for drilling into specifics. The resource and scope are unambiguous, so an agent can distinguish it from sibling market-related tools.

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?

It explicitly names cpu_list_lots as the follow-up drill-down tool and calls this 'the recommended first look at what is for sale and where,' giving both when-to-use and a clear alternative. It also notes the tool is a public read and supports filters, which helps an agent decide to invoke it without auth-related hesitation.

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