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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a real behavioral detail beyond them: 'Uses 2 API calls without a coin,' which discloses a cost/behavioral difference tied to the coin argument. It still does not mention rate limits or data freshness, so not a 5.

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 core definition is front-loaded and dense with concrete bucket ranges, followed by a short motivating question and an API-call note. Every sentence adds information, though the opening sentence is long and could be split for faster scanning.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does so well: cohort groupings, notional values, and share-long per group. It also discloses the API-call cost. What is missing is guidance on choosing this over sibling positioning tools, but the core content is complete for correct invocation.

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% and there is only one optional parameter whose meaning ('omit for all markets combined') is already documented in the schema. The description's phrase 'without a coin' reinforces but does not extend the schema's semantics. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names a specific analysis (how trader cohorts are positioned) and enumerates the exact groupings returned — account-size buckets from Micro to Whale and PnL buckets from Highly Unprofitable to Highly Profitable — plus the metrics per group (long/short notional, share long). This distinguishes it from siblings like cohort_top_coins and top_positions without needing to open their schemas.

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 motivating question ('Are whales and the profitable traders on the other side of retail?') implies when the tool is useful, giving the agent a use case. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this over cohort_top_coins, top_positions, or other positioning tools, nor any prerequisites. Usage is only implied.

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