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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds 'Read-only public research data, no account access, no order placement or fund transfers, not investment advice' — this reinforces the read-only nature but is largely redundant with the annotations. It adds some context about the data source ('warehouse indices') but does not materially expand behavioral disclosure beyond what the annotations already convey.

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?

The description is three sentences, front-loading the core purpose first, then the data source and safety caveats. Every sentence earns its place—no fluff or repetition. It is compact and easy to parse.

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 a rich input schema (5 params, 1 required) and an output schema present, the description covers the essential context: purpose, scope, and safety. It does not detail response format or pagination, but the output schema presumably handles that. The only minor gap is lack of explicit alternative routing, though usage guidelines cover the intended use.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all five parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter insights beyond echoing 'spot/perp' which is already in the market_type property. Per the calibration rule, the baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high, and the description does not compensate further.

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 clearly states the tool returns competitor CEX order-book depth within ±1% for spot/perp, sourced from warehouse indices, and positions it for BTC/ETH liquidity benchmarking. This specific verb+resource distinguishes it from the sibling info_marketdetail_get_orderbook, which is not competitor-specific.

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?

It provides clear context for usage: benchmarking competitor CEX liquidity for BTC/ETH. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the 'Competitor CEX' and 'benchmarking' phrasing makes the intended scenario obvious. No exclusions are given, so it's slightly below a 5.

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