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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. It adds value by disclosing the data source (native globalLongShortAccountRatio), the interpretation of ratio > 1, and the default behavior (summary with <=10 points). It doesn't mention rate limits or pagination, but given the annotations cover safety, this is sufficient.

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 concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, and uses clear formatting (bold for key terms, parentheses for limitations). Every sentence adds value: purpose, interpretation, limitation, and default behavior. No fluff.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 params, 2 enums, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, how to interpret results, when to use alternatives, and default behavior. It doesn't describe return format in detail, but since there's no output schema, a brief mention of 'snapshot + tren + <=10 poin' is adequate. The reference to docs/tool_response_reference.md for full details is a good practice.

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 the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds value by explaining the 'detail' parameter's purpose ('HEMAT TOKEN') and the 'limit' default behavior, which goes beyond the schema. It also clarifies the 'symbol' pattern with an example. This is above 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 clearly states the tool fetches the aggregate long/short ratio from Binance's native globalLongShortAccountRatio, with a specific verb ('get'), resource ('long/short ratio'), and scope ('all accounts/global'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool binance_get_top_trader_ratio by explicitly noting it's a blended ratio, not a top-trader breakdown.

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 mentions when to use this tool versus the alternative: 'KETERBATASAN: rasio BLENDED, bukan breakdown top-trader (pakai binance_get_top_trader_ratio untuk itu)'. It also provides usage context for the 'detail' parameter, indicating when to use 'summary' vs 'full' to save tokens.

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