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

The description adds a valuable behavioral detail beyond the annotations: venues publish different subsets, and missing data comes back as unavailable rather than zero. This goes beyond the generic openWorldHint by explaining exactly how missing values will appear. It does not discuss auth or limits, but the read-only and idempotent annotations already cover that profile.

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 two sentences with no filler. The data categories are front-loaded, and the second sentence provides a necessary caveat about venue-specific availability. 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?

For a single-parameter read-only tool, the description names the returned metrics and the key missing-data behavior, which is useful. However, it leaves the 'loaded contract' prerequisite and the meaning of `ref` undefined, so an agent still cannot confidently construct a valid request.

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 sole parameter, `ref`, has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never explains what `ref` should contain or how it relates to a 'loaded contract.' With only one parameter, the description carries the full burden of explaining input semantics and fails to do so.

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 specific data categories (funding, open interest, positioning, taker flow) and scopes them to 'a loaded contract,' which distinguishes this from sibling tools like market_candles or orderflow_read. It lacks an explicit verb such as 'fetch' or 'return,' and 'loaded contract' is not defined, but the core purpose is clear.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like orderflow_read or market_relationships. It also does not explain what 'loaded contract' means or what state must exist before calling. The use case is only implied by the listed metrics.

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