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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by naming the exchanges, defining what bearish_divergence and bullish_divergence mean, and noting that output includes a short English detail per exchange.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted clauses; every part contributes to defining the verdict categories, exchanges, or output detail. It is dense but appropriately sized for the tool.

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?

With no output schema, the description does useful work by enumerating the possible verdicts and stating that a short English detail is returned per exchange. It does not specify the exact response object structure, but it gives enough for an agent to understand what will come back.

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 both symbol and hours are fully documented in the schema. The description only loosely reinforces the 'one pair' and 'last hours' concepts without adding syntax or format details beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states a specific analytical operation: for one pair, it reports whether price moves with or against CVD order flow across four named exchanges over the last hours. It enumerates the exact verdict categories and even defines the divergence cases, making its purpose clearly distinct from sibling tools like get_liquidation_levels or get_order_book_walls.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrase 'For one pair... over the last hours,' which tells the agent the scope and time window, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool versus get_signals or get_pumps, and no stated exclusions.

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