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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructive behavior; the description reinforces this with 'Read-only, live exchange APIs' and adds methodology context via 'Composite verdict: trend ranging + cross-venue funding rate.' The 'on-chain verified merkle anchor' note adds verifiability context, though the phrase 'trend ranging' is slightly ambiguous.

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 core purpose and output values are front-loaded, and the remaining clauses are short and additive. The track-record sentence is somewhat tangential and the 'trend ranging + cross-venue funding rate' phrasing is jargon-heavy, but the overall length is appropriate and not padded.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description names the key returned elements — regime, confidence, strategy hint — and explains the data source and verifiability. It would be stronger with exact return field structure and clearer formatting of the regime enum, but it is sufficient for an agent to select and call the tool correctly.

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%, so all three parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds only general framing like 'one crypto perpetual futures' and 'composite verdict,' not parameter-specific semantics, 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?

The first sentence states a specific verb and resource: it returns the market regime, enumerates the possible values, and mentions confidence and a strategy hint for one crypto perpetual futures. It is clear enough to distinguish from the track-record tool by pointing to get_track_record, though it does not explicitly contrast with get_trade_signal or get_trade_call.

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 implies use when the agent needs a market regime for a single crypto perpetual futures and points to get_track_record for verification, which is a helpful companion-routing clue. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over siblings like get_trade_signal, get_trade_call, or scan_funding_arb, and there are no when-not conditions.

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