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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, which the description does not contradict. The description adds value by explicitly stating that confidenceScore is NOT a calibrated probability and points to documentation for threshold limitations. It also discloses the output conditions (LONG_LIQUIDATION_RISK, etc.), which helps set expectations beyond the schema.

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 yet structured: first sentence states core purpose and variables, second clarifies what it is not, third lists output conditions, and fourth adds a confidenceScore caveat. No wasted words, but it is slightly long. Still, each sentence adds meaningful 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?

The tool is complex (5 input variables, composite score, condition output), and there is no output schema. The description compensates by explaining the score type, conditions, and the non-calibrated nature of confidenceScore, plus a doc reference for further limits. It covers the essential context an agent needs to interpret results correctly.

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% (the single parameter symbol has a clear description with pattern and examples). The tool description does not add additional parameter guidance, but since the schema already covers it, baseline 3 is 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 clearly states the tool computes a divergence score between smart money and retail using five specific variables listed. It explicitly distinguishes itself from price manipulation detection, saying it measures directional divergence. This is a specific verb-resource-purpose and differentiates from sibling tools like binance_detect_mm_activity.

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 explicitly clarifies what the tool is NOT for ('BUKAN deteksi manipulasi harga'), which implicitly guides against using it for that purpose. It provides a doc reference for threshold limitations, but does not name an alternative tool or state explicit when-to-use scenarios. Still, the exclusionary statement gives clear contextual guidance.

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