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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so: it declares read-only, idempotent behavior with zero side effects, names the upstream data sources, and discloses failure modes (automatic ticker suffix stripping, structured error object with isError:true on invalid or unlisted tickers). Little behavioral context an agent needs is missing.

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?

Labeled sections (BEHAVIOR, WHEN TO USE, WHEN NOT TO USE, FAILURE MODES) make it skimmable and front-loaded with the safety profile. Slightly padded by benefit framing such as 'Eliminates raw OHLCV candle downloads,' which is not actionable for the agent.

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 single-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description supplies everything needed: what is queried, what is returned, when to pick it, when to pick a sibling, and how failures surface.

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% and the schema already documents case-insensitivity and automatic normalization, so the description largely restates it ('BTCUSDT' -> 'BTC'). The added value is the invalid-ticker error behavior, but that is already captured under failure modes, so the baseline 3 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 verb and resource ('Queries cross-exchange aggregated technical consensus across Binance, Bybit, and Hyperliquid') and enumerates the exact outputs (EMA20 trend bias, RSI14, ATR, CVD). It also distinguishes itself from the discovery-oriented sibling by scoping to a single target coin.

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?

Explicit WHEN TO USE and WHEN NOT TO USE sections name the triggering condition ('you already have a target coin') and route the agent to specific alternatives (`get_market_snapshot` for discovery, `create_alert` for triggers). This is a complete selection guide.

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