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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a key interpretation detail—'Positive = money flowing in'—which adds useful behavioral context. However, it does not mention data source, aggregation method, or whether any filtering is applied, though for a read-only data tool this is a reasonable disclosure level.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler. The first sentence front-loads the metric and its dimensions, the second adds a clarifying semantic note. Every word earns its place.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently conveys the data's dimensions and sign interpretation. It does not specify the exact return shape (e.g., rows grouped by exchange and symbol), but for a simple data retrieval tool this is nearly complete.

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 tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% vacuously. Per the baseline for no-parameter tools, a 4 is appropriate. The description adds context about the fixed windows (1h/4h/24h) but no parameter-specific semantics are needed.

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 identifies a specific resource—'Derivatives cash flow per exchange'—and elaborates with precise dimensions: 'net USD into/out of open interest over 1h/4h/24h windows, per core symbol.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_open_interest (which reports levels, not flows) and get_cvd, even without naming them.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention what question it answers, when to prefer a sibling, or any exclusions. The agent is left to infer the use case from the metric description alone.

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