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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that results are derived analytics and that raw order books are never mirrored, and it surfaces cost ($0.03 via x402), HTTP method, and a docs link. It stops short of describing auth flow details or rate limits.

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-loaded with the core purpose, followed by output detail and the optional parameter, with the endpoint/pricing footnote last. Slightly redundant phrasing ("Summarized... summary") but no wasted sentences.

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?

No output schema or annotations exist, so the description must sketch the return shape, which it does (depth buckets, spread in cents, hourly volume profile). Adding bounds for notional_usd or slug format would make it complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that notional_usd yields a slippage estimate and that slug selects one market, but it omits the slug's format constraint and the $1–$100,000 bounds on notional_usd already implied by the schema.

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 resource (one market's liquidity) and enumerates the outputs it returns: depth within 1c/5c of the touch, spread in cents, and an hourly 24h volume profile. This distinguishes it from sibling probability_get or probability_venue-calibration, though the description never names an alternative directly.

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?

"Pass notional_usd for a slippage estimate" gives clear guidance for the optional parameter, which implies usage context. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this tool over probability_get, probability_odds-compare, or probability_venue-calibration, leaving routing to inference.

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