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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real context: results are mechanical screens, not advice, and each result carries provenance. It doesn't disclose refresh cadence or how 'strength' is scaled, keeping it short of a 5.

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 what the tool does and which signals it covers; every sentence is short. The three-sentence disclaimer tail ('not recommendations', 'do not trade on them alone') is repetitious and could be compressed into one clause.

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 correctly takes on the return-value burden by summarizing strength, supporting numbers, consensus, and provenance. It omits any detail about ordering, snapshot staleness, or result volume beyond the limit cap, which leaves a small gap for an agent interpreting output.

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 67% — bias has an enum and coins has a description, while limit has none. The description's 'cap with limit' slightly clarifies limit's role, but adds no syntax, defaults, or units beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Names a concrete resource (Hyperliquid perps), the three signal families it screens for (funding carry, premium dislocation, momentum), and the shape of the result (strength, supporting numbers, overall long/short consensus). An agent can tell this apart from siblings like tape_market_pulse or tape_markets_radar by the rules-based setup framing.

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?

Provides filtering intent ('Filter by coins or bias, cap with limit') and a clear interpretive boundary ('informational only... not recommendations to buy or sell'), but never says when to pick this over the ten sibling tape_* tools or what conditions make it the right choice. Usage is implied rather than contrasted with alternatives.

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