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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers: it discloses the refusal condition (live price feed or ≥2 chains unavailable), that refusals incur no charge, the settlement-proof artifact (ProofOfSettledOutcome, kind 30120), and per-call pricing. Only the return/payload shape is left unstated.

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 core purpose, then layered with the sibling comparison, proof artifact, and refusal/pricing terms. Dense but each clause earns its place; the parenthetical pricing and proof-path details are slightly heavy but relevant.

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 one-param oracle read with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, refusal semantics, cost, and settlement proof—enough for correct invocation. The main remaining gap is the shape of the returned comparison, which it does not sketch.

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 single 'task' parameter is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), so the schema already does the work. The description adds no syntax or format guidance for the task text beyond what is structured, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb (aggregates) and resource (token's price across chains/venues) with the added behavior of flagging the highest-deviation pair. It explicitly distinguishes itself from oracle.comprehensive-report and positions itself relative to oracle.market-arbitrage, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Names oracle.comprehensive-report as the broader alternative ('single metric, not a full report') and notes it feeds oracle.market-arbitrage's spread detection, giving clear usage context. It stops short of an explicit 'use this when X, use sibling when Y' statement, so it lands just below the top tier.

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