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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It explains that the signal is necessarily contrarian, that high squeeze probability reflects crowded positioning, and enumerates all returned components including direction and velocity. It does not disclose limitations such as calculation windows or error behavior, but for a read-only, zero-parameter indicator it gives meaningful behavioral context.

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 well front-loaded with the core question and formatted with a clear returns list, but it repeats the contrarian/reversal point twice ('Contrarian by design' and the closing paragraph). Some of the return-field detail may duplicate the output schema, making the text longer than strictly necessary.

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 no-input tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete: it defines the signal's interpretation and all return values. It does not specify time windows, units for max_spread, or data-source caveats, but these are minor given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema.

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 accepts zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and the description need not add parameter meaning. It instead explains what each returned field represents, which is useful given the empty input schema.

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 clearly identifies the tool as a cross-exchange funding divergence/squeeze indicator, with a specific question and concrete outputs (squeeze_probability, divergence_direction, max_spread, spread_velocity, per-exchange rates). It does not explicitly differentiate it from similarly-named siblings such as get_convergence or get_directional_bias, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage context is implied by the framing question 'Is positioning one-sided enough to squeeze?' and the warning that high squeeze probability is contrarian, but the description never states when to prefer this tool over the alternative signals in the sibling list, nor does it give a when-not-to-use condition.

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