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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it warns that aggregated views see wider price ranges at coarser precision, that volumes should never be summed across views, that there is no strategy signal, no full-book claim, and no fill guarantee. It also discloses the price per call. This is strong added context, though it doesn't detail the exact output shape or pagination.

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 well-structured: it front-loads the core resource and views, then adds usage warnings, then pricing. Every sentence carries information, though the density of domain-specific terms (REF, M2, M5, AGG4) without expansion slightly reduces accessibility. It earns a 4 rather than 5 because a bit of structural separation (e.g., a sentence on when to use vs. siblings) would improve scannability.

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?

For a read-only market-data tool with no output schema, the description covers the key context: what data is included, the time windows, the aggregation caveat, the companion tools, and the payment method. It doesn't describe the exact response format, but the description's explicit caveats and usage guidance make it complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly. A 5 would require a bit more on the return structure or a clearer when-to-use statement relative to siblings.

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 83%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds semantic context by explaining the lookback window (30s/300s) and the meaning of the four views, which helps an agent understand how quantity_base, side, and symbol relate to the returned data. It doesn't add much beyond the schema for individual parameters, but the baseline is 3 and the description's market-context framing adds value.

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 resource (BTC/ETH perpetual market context) and a specific verb (get/read), and enumerates the four liquidity views (REF, M2, M5, AGG4), size coverage, wall changes, and aggressor flow. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by describing a market-data read tool, not a manifest, radar, or swap tool.

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 explicitly says to combine with liquidation radar, read agent_readout and quality first, and warns against adding overlapping volumes in aggregated views. It also states the pricing/payment context (x402 Base/Solana or credits) and the 30s/300s window choice, giving an agent clear when-to-use and how-to-use guidance.

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