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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the tool is public and real-time, has a 5-min cache, returns pressure and setup scores, includes market summary and top setups, and notes Pro-only fields are stripped. It does not mention any destructive effects, which is appropriate. The only minor gap is not specifying rate limits or authentication needs (implied public).

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-structured with the main purpose front-loaded. It is relatively long but each sentence adds necessary detail (assets tracked, scores, market summary, pro-only stripping, caching, parameter). Could be slightly more concise by grouping related details, but overall efficient for the complexity.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (50 assets, multiple scores, market summary, top setups, pro-only info, caching, window parameter) and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers what the tool returns (pressure/ setup scores, market summary components, top long/short setups, alerts), constraints (public, 5-min cache, pro-only stripped), and parameter usage. Nothing essential is omitted.

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% with one parameter 'window' having enum values, default, and description. The description adds value by explaining the trading windows as '1h (scalp), 4h (swing, default), 12h (position)', providing context beyond the schema's simple enum listing. This additional semantics justifies a score above the baseline 3.

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 gets a Leverage Radar snapshot with specific components (pressure scores, setup scores, top long/short setups, market summary) for 50 tracked assets. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource, and distinguishes from siblings like 'leverage_history' and 'leverage_picks_summary' by focusing on real-time snapshot.

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 usage for obtaining current leverage data and mentions the optional window parameter with trading window definitions (scalp, swing, position). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives among the many siblings (e.g., for historical data vs. snapshot), nor does it provide exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance.

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