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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description adds value by explaining the adjusted-volume methodology, held-out venues, and dated reasons. The phrase 'Measurements, not accusations' also signals an impartial reporting stance beyond what annotations convey.

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 two sentences with no filler, front-loading the core purpose before explaining the adjusted metric. Every clause earns its place, including the clarifying 'Measurements, not accusations' note.

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 simple ranking tool with full parameter schema coverage and rich annotations, the description is largely complete. It explains the key methodological nuance (adjusted volume with held-out venues), though it does not describe the exact output shape, which would be useful given there is no output schema.

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 parameters limit and window are fully documented in the schema. The description does not add parameter-level detail, but it does not need to because the schema already carries that burden.

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 resource ('CEX and DEX perpetual venues') and a clear action ('ranked by reported volume and by adjusted volume'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on cheapest venue, funding, access, and fees. The title and description align without being tautological.

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 implies the tool is for volume-based rankings of perpetual venues, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided, leaving usage context mostly implicit.

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