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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses independent source failure via sources_used/sources_unavailable, delisted-pair flagging, ath_scope limiting history, Pro+ gating for tokenomics, BTC-only derivatives, and that outputs are descriptive with an auditable mechanical grade. It omits auth requirements and rate limits, keeping it short of a 5.

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 ~250-word run-on sentence packing dozens of parenthetical data fields. It is front-loaded with the core question, but the wall-of-fields structure is hard to parse and several field descriptions (e.g. relative strength, price_time_displacement) could be trimmed or delegated to the output payload.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates exhaustively: it enumerates every returned block (returns, relative strength with base rate, F6 trend, ATH/drawdown, volatility, liquidity, tokenomics, derivatives, PTD, data_quality) so an agent knows what it will receive. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% — both parameters are fully documented, including the enum for detail. The description restates that 'detail: full adds the raw BTC/ETH benchmark returns' and notes 'any Binance USDT pair, not just BTC/ETH/SOL', adding mild scope context but little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Opens with 'Where does this coin stand? ONE call per Binance USDT pair instead of six' — a specific verb, resource, and scope that an agent can distinguish from siblings like arena_get_indicator_snapshot or arena_get_spot_price. The title 'Asset Snapshot — one coin, one call' reinforces it without mere restatement.

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?

Explicitly routes the strategy-side question to arena_get_signal_context and labels the tool '[Free tier]' and 'Descriptive, no signal'. It states when to use it, but gives no explicit when-not conditions or prerequisites beyond the sibling pointer.

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