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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the auth requirement (download with the API key in X-API-Key), the tier-gated availability semantics of the `available` field, and the per-file metadata (rows, bytes, sha256). It omits rate limits, pagination, and whether entries can be stale for free callers, leaving minor gaps.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the resource and dataset coverage, then the access mechanics. The parenthetical and em-dash lists are information-bearing rather than padding, though the single block is long enough that an agent must parse carefully.

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 adequately describes the returned entries (url, available, rows, bytes, sha256) and the temporal scope, and it pins down the auth and tier conditions needed to call the tool successfully. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 0% for the single `api_key` parameter, so the description must compensate; it only indirectly conveys meaning by mentioning the API key and X-API-Key header for downloads. That gives useful context on the key's purpose but not on format, precedence with any ambient auth, or behavior when omitted (the schema says it is optional).

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?

States a specific verb+resource (list monthly Parquet history packages) and enumerates the exact datasets covered (liquidations across 11 venues, funding hourly/settlements, open interest hourly, Hyperliquid/Lighter positions), plus the file granularity — one file per dataset per month since 2026-07. It is unmistakably distinct from data-query siblings like get_liquidations or get_open_interest_history.

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?

Explicitly routes free-tier callers to the alternative: 'free = none (use get_history for the last 24 h)'. It also states the tier-based availability window (Pro = this month and previous, Bot = all), which tells the agent precisely when this tool returns usable entries.

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