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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by naming the venue, declaring USD as the unit, and explaining the `stale` flag as a snapshot-freshness indicator. It stops short of describing the response shape (e.g. per-market object keys), which matters since there is no output schema.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler: the first front-loads the resource and the metric inventory with units, the second disambiguates the one non-obvious field. Every clause earns its place.

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 input parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of telling the agent what comes back, and it does so by listing the metric categories plus the `stale` flag. Only the concrete response layout (field names/hierarchy) is left unspecified, which is a minor gap for an overview tool.

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 baseline is 4. There is nothing further the description could add on parameter meaning.

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 (Strike Finance perpetuals market data) and enumerates the exact contents: open interest, volume, liquidations, per-market figures and totals, denominated in USD. This distinguishes it from the sibling get_perps_positions (wallet-level positions), though it never explicitly names that sibling as the alternative.

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?

Usage is implied by scope — 'per-market figures and totals' reads as a venue-level overview rather than a per-wallet view — but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or reference to the neighboring get_perps_positions tool for position-level data.

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