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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses useful traits — 'Pure exposure, no edge' and 'Allowed in personal and standard funds' — but these describe the bots rather than the tool's behavior (e.g., no pagination, no filtering, no result-size note). For a zero-parameter list tool with an output schema, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource definition, then the use case and constraints. Dense but every clause (what it is, how to use it, where it's allowed) earns its place; only the trailing constraint sentence is arguably secondary.

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 simple zero-arg list tool with an output schema, the description supplies the category definition, a motivating use case, and eligibility constraints. It stops short of stating how results relate to broader bot listings, but that is a minor gap given the output schema and simplicity.

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 schema defines zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case. No parameter semantics are needed, and the description does not waste words on nonexistent inputs.

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 clearly identifies the resource as a specific category: 'Directional building-block bots: always long / always short BTC, ETH, SOL.' This distinguishes it from generic siblings like list_bots, though it never explicitly uses a listing verb (implied by the name) and doesn't state whether this is a subset filter of all bots.

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 gives a usage context ('use them to express a market view in a formation') with a concrete example, which implies when to reach for it. However, it does not compare against alternatives like list_bots, list_my_bots, or get_marketplace_bots, so the agent must infer that this is the directional subset.

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