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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds critical behavioral constraints (the 300-pair limit) and behavioral output details (what is included in each row: receiving side, next settlement, OI, etc.). This provides full operational 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 dense but highly efficient. It front-loads the core function and constraints immediately, delivering maximum information density without superfluous language.

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 high parameter coverage and explicit siblings, the description is complete. It explains the tool's limitation (the 300 pairs) and its workflow connection to `pair_briefing`, leaving the agent with all necessary context.

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?

While schema coverage is high (88%), the description significantly adds semantic meaning by explaining the filters in plain English ('receiving side'), clarifying the sorting options, and describing the components of the output row.

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 defines the tool's purpose: to discover perpetual pairs. It specifies the resource (perpetual pairs on the radar) and the specific capabilities (filtering by coin, exchange, side, rate, volume, and sorting).

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 provides precise usage guidelines by defining the scope: it filters the 'scanner's 300 strongest pairs.' Crucially, it dictates when NOT to use this tool—by routing users outside the top 300 to the sibling tool, `pair_briefing`.

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