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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: READ-ONLY framing, ~1800s response caching, auth modes (X-Api-Key or x402 payment proof), HTTP 402 behavior for anonymous calls, $0.001 USDC cost, and a 60/min rate limit. These operational traits are exactly what annotations do not cover.

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 purpose sentence is duplicated verbatim ('Multi-period moving averages ... BloFin perpetual candles'), which wastes space. Otherwise the labeled structure (Behavior/Auth/Cost/Rate limit/Returns/Guidelines) is readable and front-loaded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, yet the description still notes the MA periods (7, 25, 50, 99, 200) across timeframes. Auth, cost, rate limit, and safety are all covered, leaving nothing an agent needs 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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (symbol and the optional __x_payment). The description adds no syntax or format detail for symbol beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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: multi-period SMA/EMA at several lengths computed from BloFin perpetual candles. It clearly distinguishes itself as a moving-average data fetch, though it never explicitly differentiates from data-fetch siblings like cc.indicator_generator or cc.blofin_public. The repeated purpose sentence is redundant but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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?

Gives concrete usage guidance: 'Use for research / signal context', names the sibling cc.agent_strategy as a pairing, and warns 'Do not invent fills from this data alone'. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use statement, but the routing to a companion tool is clear.

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