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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that it is 'Descriptive, not a forecast,' notes it is 'per call' (stateless), and mentions the extra BTC transaction data. It does not cover rate limits or error conditions, but for a read-only data query these are less critical; the description provides enough behavioral context.

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 dense but well-organized, front-loading the core purpose and then listing metrics in a logical sequence. It avoids redundancy, though it is longer than average; every sentence contributes either a metric, a limitation, or an asset-specific detail, making it appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 complex tool with no output schema, the description covers the key outputs: funding from two venues, open interest, the positioning signal categories, stress measurement in standard deviations, and the BTC-specific block data. It does not explain computation details or response format, but the essentials for an agent to understand what it will receive are present.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds value beyond the schema by listing the supported assets (BTC, ETH, SOL, BNB, XRP, DOGE) and clarifying that BTC receives additional block-transaction data. It also reinforces the default asset (BTC) and the optionality of the symbol, giving the agent a fuller understanding of parameter behavior.

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 ('Crypto positioning for trading agents') and a precise resource (funding, open interest, positioning signal, stress, and BTC transactions) for a defined asset list. It clearly distinguishes itself from all sibling tools, none of which are crypto-related, and avoids tautology by detailing what data is delivered.

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?

The description gives clear context for when it would be used (trading agents needing crypto positioning) and what it covers, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. Given that no sibling tool overlaps in purpose, the lack of explicit exclusions is acceptable, though a direct 'use this for crypto positioning' would be stronger.

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