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

Annotations already declare this a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by explaining that venue=None aggregates all routable venues and that the detail parameter changes which fields are returned. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 dense but efficient. Every sentence adds value: market venue scope, aggregate behavior, detail variants, and the chaining hint to place_perp_order. It is front-loaded and avoids 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?

Given the annotations (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), the output schema, and the absence of required parameters, the description covers everything an agent needs to call the tool correctly and interpret its default behavior. The field-level detail variants are described precisely, so no critical operational knowledge is 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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description carries the burden, and it largely succeeds: it explains the venue parameter (None means aggregate) and the detail parameter with the exact field sets for 'concise' and 'full'. It does not elaborate on venue string values or caller_id, but those are less critical given the explicit coverage of the two behavior-driving parameters.

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 opening phrase 'Perp markets across venues' names the resource and purpose directly. The clarification that venue=None aggregates all routable venues distinguishes this from the single-venue sibling perp_markets, and the note about chaining symbol into place_perp_order reinforces its role as a market-listing tool.

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 explains how venue and detail parameters behave, which gives useful context for when the tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, such as 'for a single venue, use perp_markets' or 'for position data, use perp_positions_all.'

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