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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, costly, or requires authentication. The agent has no insight into what happens or what data is returned.

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 sentence with 6 words, which is too terse. While it avoids verbosity, it fails to earn its place because it provides no actionable information. Conciseness should not come at the expense of completeness.

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 the complexity of a 'full trading context' tool with 2 parameters, no output schema, and 14 sibling tools, this description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the return value, the scope of data, or how it differs from related tools.

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%, and the description adds no meaning to the parameters. The 'days' parameter (default 30) is completely unexplained, while 'symbol' only gets implied context from the tool name. The agent cannot infer how to use 'days' correctly.

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 'Full trading context for a tokenized asset' is vague. It does not specify a verb (e.g., 'get', 'retrieve', 'fetch') nor clearly differentiate the tool from siblings like 'candles', 'history', or 'earnings'. It fails to convey what specific data constitutes 'full context'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision criteria for tool selection.

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