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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, and the description still adds real value: it discloses that only metadata is returned and never keys or secrets, and that `markets` reflects the scope verified at save time (Kraken dual keys; KuCoin/Bitget futures scope). It does not describe ordering, pagination, or what an empty list implies, so it stops short of full behavioral coverage.

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 read-only marker and the core action, then the result fields, then the markets caveat, then the when-to-call rule. Dense but every clause carries information; the parenthetical exchange-specific detail is the only part that borders on over-packing.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining return values, and it does so by naming the five returned fields plus the enum semantics of `markets`. Combined with the explicit first-step guidance and the no-secrets guarantee, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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 there is no parameter meaning to add beyond the empty schema. The description correctly spends no space on inputs and instead documents the shape of the returned fields, which is the relevant semantic content here.

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 verb and resource ("list the user's connected CEX venues") and enumerates the returned fields (id, exchange slug, label, status, markets), making it unmistakably distinct from siblings like list_fills or read_onchain_balances. The stated purpose of resolving a connectionId for follow-up reads further pins down its role.

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?

Gives explicit sequencing guidance: "Call this first when the user asks about positions, balances, or anything per-exchange," and explains that the resulting connectionId is what follow-up reads target. It also adds a routing rule within results ("prefer markets=both for positions reads"), though it does not name an explicit when-not case or a named alternative tool.

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