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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no error behavior for unknown contract/settle combos, no note about which settlement variants exist, no hint about return shape.

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 short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined brevity.

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, the description is the only source of information about what "details" a contract lookup returns (tick size, risk tiers, funding interval, etc.), and it says nothing. For a two-required-parameter lookup with sibling list tools, more context is needed to call and interpret it confidently.

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%, with "contract" and "settle" documented and settle's enum enumerated, so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description adds no extra semantics such as the expected symbol format for `contract` or how settle affects the contract address, which is the baseline-3 level when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ("Get") and resource ("details of a single futures contract"), and "single" implies singularity versus the sibling cex_fx_list_fx_contracts. However, "details" is vague about what is returned, and the description never names the list sibling or explains how it differs from cex_fx_list_fx_contracts / cex_fx_list_fx_contracts_all.

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 guidance on when to use this versus the many sibling contract-listing tools, no preconditions, and no exclusions. An agent must infer from the name alone that this is the single-contract lookup and the list tools are the bulk alternative.

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