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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that data comes from 5-minute Cron snapshots rather than live quotes, which is a meaningful behavioral disclosure beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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?

Description is brief, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds distinct information: what the tool returns, how it's produced (cron snapshots), how it differs from live, and the compressed vs. full output modes.

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's no output schema, so the description must partially cover what the tool returns. It mentions 'metrik turunan + <=10 poin terbaru' vs. 'array/level mentah lengkap', which gives some shape. However, it references a separate doc (docs/tool_response_reference.md) and assumes familiarity with 'basis history' concepts. For a tool with 3 params and no output schema, this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 covers all 3 params with good descriptions. The description adds semantic context: it explains the time-series nature by noting the 5-minute snapshot cadence, and clarifies the 'detail' param leads to different output sizes ('hemat token'). This adds value beyond the schema's type/constraint info.

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 a specific verb, resource, and scope: it returns historical basis derived from 5-minute Cron snapshotsapp, and explicitly contrasts itself with the live sibling tool binance_get_basis. An agent can immediately identify this is the historical variant, not the live one.

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?

It names the alternative (binance_get_basis) and specifies that this is NOT live, which tells an agent when to prefer it (historical analysis vs. current snapshot). It doesn't list broader when-not-to-use conditions, but the core distinction is present.

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