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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the substantive point that these are 'real-time' feeds, implying fresh snapshot data rather than historical or cached values. It does not say whether output is a live snapshot, staleness window, or refresh cadence, which matters for a time-sensitive radar.

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 sentence with the verb and payload front-loaded, and the five-item list is efficient because each item names a distinct data source. Slightly dense but no filler or redundant restatement of the name.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description carries the whole burden of describing return content, and it does enumerate the feeds. But it gives no sense of response shape, units, or how the five feeds are keyed, and it omits sibling differentiation — leaving real gaps for an agent choosing between radar tools.

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, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly conveys that all feeds are returned together with no filtering options.

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 ("Retrieves") and enumerates the concrete feed contents: session clocks, liquidity multipliers, news blackouts, stablecoin velocity, prediction market odds. An agent knows exactly what data comes back. However, it never distinguishes this from the sibling get_market_telemetry or render_market_intelligence_frame, which plausibly overlap.

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 at all — nothing says when macro radar is the right call versus get_market_telemetry or get_prop_guardian_status. The 'real-time' phrasing implies a pre-decision context check, but the agent must infer that entirely.

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