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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds modest value by signalling that data comes from "existing" adapters and is "actual" (live, not synthetic), implying a configuration dependency, but it says nothing about fetch granularity, staleness, failure when no adapter exists, or response shape.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the gaps in the other dimensions rather than reflecting tight editing of richer content.

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?

The tool is simple (one optional enum parameter, read-only) so the main remaining burden is describing what is returned, and there is no output schema. The phrase "funding and open-interest snapshots" partially covers that, but the mismatch between the name "analyze" and the described act of "reading" leaves the agent unsure whether computation happens or raw data is returned.

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 0%, and the description never mentions the single `symbol` parameter, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema. The enum and BTC default are self-explanatory in the schema, but the description does not clarify whether the symbol selects one perp market or scopes an aggregate snapshot.

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 gives a specific verb ("Read") and a specific resource ("Hyperliquid perpetual funding and open-interest snapshots"), which is far more concrete than the tool name "analyze_perps" alone. It does not, however, distinguish this from the sibling "market_snapshot", which an agent could plausibly read as overlapping.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tool is named. The phrase "from existing SignalForge adapters" hints at a prerequisite (adapters must be configured) but never states it as a usage condition, and nothing tells the agent when to prefer this over market_snapshot.

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