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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds genuine context beyond that — the provenance (own ten-minute venue record), the checkpoint-level granularity, the cross-venue disagreement dimension, and the follow-through to the realised next-open gap. It does not cover pagination or response volume, which keeps it at 4.

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?

Front-loaded with the trigger condition, then the data provenance, then scope, then defaults — a sensible ordering. It is dense to the point of telegraphic fragments ('window weekend or night; one symbol or the whole board'), but nearly every clause carries information about what the tool returns.

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 still conveys what comes back — distance from last cash close at each checkpoint, venue dispersion, and the next-open realised gap — plus defaults and window semantics. That is sufficient for a read-only, open-world analytics tool with fully described parameters.

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 coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (limit, symbol, window) are already documented, including the weekend/night enum meanings and the 15-of-60 default. The description restates the default and the 'pass symbol, or limit for more' tradeoff but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. 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?

Names a specific verb+resource: gap data for stock, index and commodity perpetuals versus the cash close, checkpoint by checkpoint, with a stated data source (ByKaranteli's ten-minute venue record). It distinguishes weekend vs night windows and one-symbol vs whole-board scope, but never differentiates itself from the adjacent siblings get_tradfi_board or get_tokenized_stocks, which an agent may confuse with 'the whole board'.

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?

Opens with an explicit invocation trigger: 'Call this when the user asks what a stock, index or commodity perpetual did over the weekend or overnight while the cash market was closed.' It also states the default scope behaviour when no symbol is passed. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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