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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: it is experimental, carries no execution authority, and discloses the weighting approach and known caveats ('deepest-venue blindness', dislocations). It stops short of describing return format or failure modes.

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 dense line that is front-loaded with the resource and the key caveat, with no filler sentences. The terse telegraphic style packs meaning efficiently, though 'deepest-venue blindness' and 'dislocations' are left unexplained.

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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description carries the burden of explaining what the agent gets back, and it does not — the return shape of a consensus price is unspecified. The algorithmic terms are name-dropped without enough definition for an agent to know exactly what is computed.

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 semantics to document and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly does not attempt to explain inputs that do not exist.

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 states a specific resource (BTC/ETH consensus price) and the method behind it (depth/squared-half-spread weights, concentration, dislocations), reinforced by the title 'Consensus price when venues disagree'. It is clear what the tool computes, though the verb is implied rather than stated and the jargon is dense. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like venue_concentration.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no sibling is named as an alternative. The caveat 'Experimental; no execution authority' implies it should not drive execution decisions, which is a partial usage signal, but the agent is left to infer everything else.

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