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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description does not contradict them. It adds useful context such as the token-saving `summary` mode (which returns fewer points) and the availability issue for dated contracts, going beyond what annotations provide.

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 two sentences, well-structured: first states purpose and key distinction, second provides critical usage note. It front-loads the most important information and has zero wasted words.

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 output schema, the description covers the key aspects: purpose, input format, availability constraints, and token-saving behavior via `detail`. It references docs for output details, which is acceptable given openWorldHint. It adequately handles a 7-parameter tool with 3 required ones.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds significant semantic value by explaining the `pair` format (no margin suffix) and the importance of `contractType`, as well as the behavior of `detail` (summary vs full). These clarifications are not fully obvious from the schema alone.

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?

Description clearly states it provides candlesticks for perpetual/current/next quarter contracts from underlying pairs, and distinguishes from regular klines by emphasizing pair+contractType instead of symbol. The verb 'get' and resource 'continuous klines' are specific and differentiate from sibling tools like binance_get_klines.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on using `pair` without margin-asset suffix and `contractType` instead of the usual symbol, which is critical for this tool. It also warns that dated contracts may not be available for all pairs. While it doesn't explicitly state when to use this over alternatives, the important note makes usage clear.

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