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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive, so the description need not restate safety. It adds useful context about aggregate market scope and data freshness, but it does not disclose window effects, caching, or return formatting. No contradiction with 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?

A single compact sentence front-loads the verb and object and lists the report contents without filler. It is appropriately sized for a low-complexity 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?

For a read-only tool with one optional parameter, the description gives a reasonable high-level outcome and names the data it returns. However, it omits the window parameter's effect and returns no detail about output shape, and it provides no selection guidance among the many sibling market tools. This leaves some ambiguity for correct 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description never mentions the only parameter, 'window', or its enum values (1m, 5m, 15m). The parameter name and enum are partially self-explanatory, but the description fails to compensate for the missing field-level documentation.

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 ('market-wide' summary) and enumerates the content areas: breadth, buying pressure, momentum, unusual activity, and data freshness. This helps distinguish it from token-specific tools like analyze_token, though it does not explicitly contrast it with overlapping siblings such as get_market_regime or get_market_intelligence.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The word 'market-wide' implies an aggregate snapshot, but the description does not say when to prefer it over find_unusual_activity, get_top_momentum, or get_market_regime, nor when it would not be appropriate.

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