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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context about cross-verification against best-liquidity pools and the gap focus. However, it does not disclose output structure, refresh behavior, or data limitations, so the description only partially complements the 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the core purpose and examples. The second sentence adds context and a cross-verification note. The text appears slightly truncated at 'DexScr', but as presented it remains efficient and non-redundant.

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 simple parameter schema, rich annotations, and existing output schema, the description provides enough context for an agent to understand the tool's domain and timing. It explains what the gap is, when it matters, and that cross-verification is involved. It does not cover all possible behavioral details, but the missing pieces are not critical for invocation.

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 schema has one 'input' parameter described generically as 'parametros del producto (JSON o texto)' with 100% schema description coverage. The tool description does not add parameter-level guidance such as accepted keys or example inputs. Since the schema already covers the parameter, the description does not need to repeat it, but it also does not add meaningful semantics beyond the schema.

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 names a specific product/resource: the gap between tokenized stocks trading 24/7 on-chain and their last official NYSE close. It also states the core concept ('on-chain price discovery happens BEFORE TradFi opens'), which clarifies what the tool tracks. It does not explicitly state the action verb or output format, but it is distinguishable from sibling tools due to the specific RWA/tokenized-stock domain.

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 provides a clear use context: use this when monitoring overnight/weekend price discovery for tokenized stocks relative to the previous NYSE close. It implies the tool is useful before TradFi opens. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the context is strong enough to guide selection among the listed siblings.

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