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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that – no rate limits, no auth caveats, no note about data latency or what the returned ratio actually represents.

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?

Two tight sentences: the metric is front-loaded, followed by a concrete example. The parenthetical is slightly redundant against the tool name and title, but there is no wasted prose.

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 must carry return-value meaning, and it does only partially ('long vs short percentage and ratio'). Since the input schema is fully documented and the operation is a simple idempotent read, this is adequate but leaves the agent guessing about response shape, ordering and timeframe defaults.

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 symbol auto-expansion, the exchange default (Binance) and the interval enum list. The description's clause 'on an exchange' marginally clarifies the exchange parameter's role but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific metric (long/short ratio) and scope (global account long vs short percentage and ratio on an exchange), which lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like coinglass_funding_rate or coinglass_open_interest. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so 4 rather than 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use, and no routing to alternatives. The only usage signal is a sample invocation, which shows syntax but not decision criteria.

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