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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the readOnly/idempotent/openWorld annotations: the data source URL, ed25519 signature verification against a pinned release key, fail-closed behavior on signature mismatch, and explicit content constraints (no orders, no monetary sizes, no promised returns, not financial advice). The fail-closed semantics are exactly the kind of trait annotations cannot express.

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 dense sentence plus two short disclaimer clauses, front-loaded with the source and payload contents. Every clause carries information, though the disclaimer tail could be trimmed slightly.

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 compensates by enumerating the returned content categories and stating the integrity guarantee and failure mode. Nothing an agent needs to call and interpret this tool correctly appears to be missing.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema has nothing to document and the description needs to add no parameter meaning. Baseline 4 applies.

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 resource and enumerates its payload (focus pools, ladder windows, rung guidance, rebalance ranges, projects, lessons), which lets an agent distinguish it immediately from the market-data siblings like get_ohlcv or get_order_book. The verb is implicit in the tool name but the purpose 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?

The description establishes context ('guidance only: no orders, no sizes in money, no promised returns') but never states when to call it versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites for invoking it. Usage is only implied by the content summary.

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