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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description adds no additional behavioral disclosures (e.g., rate limits, data freshness). It does provide context on data sources and interpretation, but does not go beyond what annotations already convey regarding safety or side effects.

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 description is two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and adds valuable interpretation. Every sentence 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?

For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what data is included, how to interpret the result, and the bullish implication. It could mention data freshness or update frequency, but omission is minor given the tool's 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 input schema has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not reference any missing parameters. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate given no parameters require explanation.

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 states the tool's purpose: a 'fiat-to-crypto liquidity gauge' with specific data sources (BTC+ETH ETF flows, USDT+USDC mint/burn) and an interpretation guideline (net inflow = bullish). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_basic_macro or get_macro_context, which address different macroeconomic aspects.

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 usage for assessing liquidity direction (bullish/bearish) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this over alternatives (e.g., get_basic_macro) or when not to use it. It lacks exclusion criteria or comparative context with siblings.

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