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

Annotations only declare readOnly and idempotent hints. The description goes beyond this by disclosing that the tool returns a fixed structure with explicit fields, that it is callable but inert, and crucially warns against misinterpreting the absence as a zero flow. This is valuable behavioral context not inferable from annotations.

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?

Although the description is longer than typical, every sentence serves a purpose: retirement status, rationale, compatibility note, return structure, warning, alternative routing, example, and disclaimer. It is front-loaded with 'RETIRED' and structured logically, with no wasted words.

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?

Despite being a retired tool with no output schema, the description fully specifies the return object fields, explains the tool's history and current behavior, provides alternatives, and includes a usage caution. An agent has complete information to handle this tool correctly, including when to avoid it.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema already covers everything. The description redundantly states 'takes no arguments', but this adds no new semantics. Per the guideline for 0 params, baseline is 4; no further explanation is needed.

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 states the tool is RETIRED and serves no flow figures, explicitly defining its purpose as returning an absence status rather than data. It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming live alternatives such as scan_signals and get_sovereign_reserves, making its role 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?

It explicitly instructs when to use this tool (for compatibility of existing integrations) and when not to (for live signals, pointing to specific sibling tools). It also provides a critical behavioral note — to read absence as absence, not zero — which directly guides agent interpretation.

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