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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It reveals neither that an access_token may be required for this 'PRO' tier, nor the result shape, ordering guarantees, or default limit — significant gaps for a tool whose name suggests paid/gated access.

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 compact sentence with the resource and filtering capability front-loaded. The 'PRO.' token is the only wasted text; otherwise every clause carries information.

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 annotations, no output schema, and 4 params at 25% coverage, the description leaves too much unexplained: authentication expectations, default/pagination behavior via 'limit', and what the scan returns are all absent.

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 only 25%. The description explains the sort axes and min-volume filter, but says nothing about 'limit' or the access_token requirement, and it names 'open interest' as a sort option that is not a valid enum value ('abs_change'/'abs_funding' go unmentioned). It adds partial meaning while introducing a mismatch.

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 resource (all USDT perpetuals) and the full set of sort axes, so an agent can tell this is the broad market-wide scanner rather than a focused one. The bare 'PRO.' prefix adds nothing and the 'open interest' sort option it advertises does not appear in the enum, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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?

No statement of when to reach for this versus big_moves, funding_extremes, or market_pulse. The phrase 'Full scanner' implies it is the general-purpose entry point, but that routing decision is left entirely to inference.

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