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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it declares the tool read-only, signals that values are 'fresh' and that impact figures are 'bounded' estimates rather than exact, and warns that the output is not an executable quote. Missing are rate/latency behavior of the 'fast-quoter' proxy, staleness guarantees, and what happens when the venue is unreachable or the proxy set changes.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with verb and resource, then a compact list of returned data, then a single scoping disclaimer. Given there is no output schema, the field enumeration earns its place rather than being redundant padding.

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 and no output schema, the description supplies the two things an agent most needs: what comes back and that the data is context rather than a tradeable quote. Gaps remain around refresh cadence ('fresh' is unquantified) and error/degraded-venue behavior, which matter for a live market-context tool.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The description's field enumeration is useful for interpreting output but is not parameter semantics.

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?

Specific verb ('Get') plus a precisely scoped resource ('fresh Hanji Monad MON/USDC CLOB context'), followed by an enumeration of exactly what the response contains (proxy identities, L2 spread, displayed depth, book-impact estimates). It also draws a clear line against adjacent concepts ('not an oracle-consensus price or executable order quote'), which separates it from get_consensus_price and the prepare_*_swap siblings.

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 exclusion clause ('read-only venue context, not an oracle-consensus price or executable order quote') tells an agent when NOT to reach for this tool, which is valuable given how many price/quote siblings exist. However, it never states a positive trigger ('use when inspecting MON/USDC book depth before sizing') and names no sibling alternative explicitly, so routing still requires inference.

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