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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations by defining the 'elevated' flag semantics (fixed threshold abs(mid_oracle_gap_bp) >= alert_threshold_bp), explicitly disclaiming it as a manipulation determination, noting it is a single snapshot with no trade-flow/volume data, and disclosing the payment requirement (USDC on Base). This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then layers caveats, threshold logic, and cost disclosure. Every clause is relevant, though the dense single-paragraph packing of incident backstory, threshold formula, and payment details is slightly heavy for a one-parameter tool.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, and the description compensates with threshold semantics, data limitations, and cost. The reference to alert_threshold_bp, which is not a parameter, introduces mild ambiguity about whether that threshold is configurable, keeping it just short of 5.

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% for the single 'coin' parameter, so the schema already documents the ticker format. The description adds no additional per-parameter detail beyond what is in the schema, making the baseline of 3 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?

States a specific verb (check) and a precise resource: whether a protocol pricing off Hyperliquid's raw mid is exposed to a mid-price swing. The failure-mode framing and the incident reference make the intent unambiguous, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with siblings like market.kimchi_alert or market.cycle_compare.

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 tool is framed as 'Use this tool to check whether...', which implies the usage context and ties it to a concrete scenario. However, it offers no explicit when-not guidance or naming of an alternative tool when the mid/oracle check isn't the right lens.

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