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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: unavailable prices return null, derivatives mode returns midpoints with original units, source time, spread and depth checks, and catalog=true avoids source reads. It omits auth/permission needs and rate limits, but the operational traits it does give are substantive.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: core purpose first, then mode semantics, then edge cases (null prices, catalog shortcut). A few clauses are compressed to the point of awkwardness but no sentence is wasted.

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 annotations and no output schema, so the description must cover behavior and returns. It handles null handling and per-market return content well, but leaves the category parameter and the overall response shape only partially specified.

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 coverage is only 25%, so the description must compensate and it partly does: it explains both market enum values in depth, the catalog flag's side effect, and the symbol format (perpetual IDs like xyz:SILVER). However, the category enum (11 values) is never addressed, leaving a gap that the low schema coverage was supposed to be filled.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Read SOTW-computed public onchain prices') and immediately distinguishes its two market modes. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling tools, but the resource domain is unambiguous.

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?

States the default (market=pools) and what each mode reads, plus the catalog=true shortcut for listing reviewed contracts without source reads. That gives an agent clear routing between the parameter values, though there is no explicit 'when not to use' guidance or sibling routing.

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