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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive. The description adds useful scope context by saying the data includes positions from every wallet on the node and reports how many positions are open in each market, but it does not disclose ordering direction, freshness, or pagination behavior.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently conveys the resource, ranking metric, currency, and included position-count detail.

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?

For a low-complexity read-only ranking tool with rich annotations, the description covers the core data and source scope. However, it omits the limit parameter behavior and does not clarify ordering or completeness/pagination, which an agent needs to invoke it predictably without an output schema.

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 only parameter, limit, is not mentioned in the description, and the schema provides no textual description for it despite having default/minimum/maximum constraints. The description does not compensate for the 0% schema description coverage by explaining result count or default/maximum behavior.

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 states a specific verb-like operation and resource: markets ranked by open interest in USD, with position counts. It is clearly more specific than a generic market list, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as market_overview, list_markets, or top_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?

There is no guidance on when to use this ranking versus alternatives like market_overview, list_markets, or top_positions. The intended use is only implied by the phrase 'ranked by open interest'.

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