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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one meaningful behavioral fact – results include delisted contracts – but does not discuss pagination behavior, default limits, or 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 sentence, front-loaded with the scope qualifier 'all (including delisted)'. Nothing is wasted, though it is arguably too terse to be fully helpful.

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 complete schema and rich annotations, the description mainly needs to convey scope, which it does. However, because there is no output schema, it leaves the returned contract fields ('contract information') unspecified, which is a gap for an agent trying to understand the result.

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 limit, offset, and settle are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, making the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Query') and resource ('contract information') and adds the scope 'all ... including delisted', which implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling cex_fx_list_fx_contracts. However, it does not explicitly name that sibling or state the contrast, so sibling differentiation remains implicit rather than explicit.

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 when-to-use guidance is provided; the description never mentions alternatives or conditions for choosing this tool over cex_fx_list_fx_contracts or cex_fx_get_fx_contract. The only hint is the word 'all', leaving the agent to infer the use case.

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