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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint true, idempotentHint true, and destructiveHint false. The description adds 'Descriptive market data only,' reinforces the read-only nature, and mentions that perp and lending forced-close data are kept separate. This adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations without contradiction.

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 first sentence is long but well-structured with a clear list. The second sentence is grammatically awkward and repeats the 'one-call brief' idea without adding crisp clarity. It could be tightened to directly state the usage distinction between market_changes and market_digest.

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 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the returned content and read-only nature. However, the ambiguous relationship with market_digest leaves an agent uncertain about which tool to pick for a given timing scenario, making the contextual guidance incomplete.

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 takes zero parameters and the schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema requires no additional explanation. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description adds no parameter-specific details that are 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 what the tool returns with a specific enumeration: risk regime, news read, whale net flows, unusual coins, biggest movers, and forced-close picture. It also names the sibling market_digest, providing a distinction between the two, even if the sentence structure is ambiguous.

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 implies a usage distinction by mentioning that market_digest serves on a timer and referencing an on-demand 'what changed since this morning / overnight' question. However, the grammar is confusing and does not explicitly say when to choose market_changes over market_digest or other market siblings, leaving the guidance to inference.

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