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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: results are a hybrid of an external indexer (Proof) and live on-chain reads, which tells the agent the two halves may have different freshness. It stops short of stating staleness or failure behavior, so not a 5.

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, no filler. The data-source and returned-field summary comes first, and the optional-parameter rule is placed last where it is most actionable. Every clause carries information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden, and it does list the components returned (collateral, debt, residual, claimable, synth balance, indexed history). For a two-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage this is close to complete; only units, freshness guarantees and behavior for an unknown market are missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, including that market accepts an address or a symbol like NO-NVDA. The description still adds value the schema lacks by defining the semantics of omitting market (return all markets). That is a small but meaningful increment over the baseline 3.

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 names the resource precisely and enumerates the exact data returned: indexed history from Proof plus live collateral, debt, residual, claimable and synth balance. That is far more specific than the tautological title. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from the nearest sibling, quote_position, which an agent could easily confuse with a read-only position lookup.

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?

"Omit market for all markets" is a genuine usage instruction for the optional parameter, so some guidance is present. But there is no statement of when to prefer this over quote_position, nor any prerequisite or error condition guidance. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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