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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds useful context about coverage (~1,000 markets) and the set of ranking modes, but says nothing about result ordering, pagination, or freshness of the data. Reasonable but not rich beyond the annotation.

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?

Front-loaded with scope, then views, then usage triggers, then args. Dense but every clause carries information; no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should cover behavior and parameters more fully. View enumeration covers the main axis, but with 4 parameters at 0% schema coverage, the missing semantics for window, asset_class, and limit leave real gaps.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It enumerates the view values (trending, movers, funding, open_interest, liquidations, whales, weekend), which is genuinely valuable, but leaves window, asset_class, and limit (omitted entirely from the Args list) undefined in both schema and text.

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?

States a specific verb and resource with scope: 'Perp markets ranked across ~1,000 markets,' then enumerates the view modes. The scope ('whole market') implicitly separates it from the sibling get_perps, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Gives concrete user-question triggers ('which perps are trending', 'highest funding rates', 'biggest liquidations today', 'whale trades'), which map cleanly onto the listed views. It never states when *not* to use it or when to prefer get_perps instead.

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