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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only: reads live exchange APIs, places no orders.' It adds further behavioral context beyond annotations: the tool consumes live exchange data (real-time, not cached) and a single call covers the entire universe via one scan, returning a sortable list with confidence and regime metadata.

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?

Three sentences, each with a distinct job: (1) the verb, resource, scope, and return fields, (2) routing to the right sibling, (3) safety behavior. The most decision-relevant information is front-loaded and there are no filler words, placeholder text, or redundant restatements of the tool name.

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 tool's complexity — 11 optional parameters, 4 enums, no output schema — the schema descriptions handle the parameter semantics fully, and the description covers the return shape ('each with confidence and market regime'). This is nothing missing about the unexamined parameter usage guidance is clear, but a brief note about the result ordering (non-HOLD ranked first) is delegated to the schema, which is acceptable.

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 11 optional parameters are fully documented in the schema (e.g., topN, rankBy lenses, oiBasis, exchange list, timeframe, includeHolds, minConfidence). The description adds no parameter-level detail of its own, but it doesn't need to; the schema carries the full parameter documentation burden, and the baseline of 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 description states a specific verb and resource: it returns 'ranked BUY SELL HOLD trade calls across the top crypto perpetual futures by open interest'. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_trade_call by framing this tool as the whole-coverage breadth entry point, so an agent knows exactly what this scan does versus the per-coin depth 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?

It explicitly routes the agent: 'Use this for breadth; use get_trade_call for per-coin depth and reasoning.' This gives a clear selection condition (whole-market breadth vs. single-coin depth) and names the exact alternative, leaving no ambiguity about when to pick this tool over its closest sibling.

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