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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses cost, side effects, return object name, and the 'not a trade signal' caveat, plus interpretation rules for output classes. It does not explain authentication or payment flow, but the schema covers that, and the description adds meaningful 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 compact with labeled sections, but the middle is a dense run of fragments ('Also magnet, OI, L/S, clusters, real liqs.') that is hard to parse. It is not bloated, but it sacrifices clarity for brevity and does not front-load the core purpose.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain what the agent receives and how to interpret it. It names the return object and some class semantics, but leaves central terms like liq_radar, cluster_grammar, magnet, OI, and L/S undefined. An agent unfamiliar with this domain cannot fully judge whether the tool fits the task.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents symbol, x_payment, and agent_wallet in detail. The description's whitelist and 'omit=BTC' largely duplicate the symbol enum rather than adding new parameter semantics. Baseline 3 applies.

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 never states a clear verb+resource. It opens with an opaque instruction about cluster_grammar and only later says 'RETURNS: hypernatt_liq_radar_v2.' The 'USE WHEN: terrain / timing / sizing' hint implies the tool provides liquidity terrain data, but an agent would struggle to state confidently what this tool does.

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 gives explicit usage context with 'USE WHEN: terrain / timing / sizing' and an exclusion with 'NOT a trade signal.' It also advises reading cluster_grammar first when present. However, it does not name sibling alternatives or explain when another tool would be preferable.

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