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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and compensates by disclosing sources (Hyperliquid and OKX), composition logic (funding, premium, OI, long/short ratio), output format (regime, pressure score, evidence), and access requirements ('Free public upstreams, no exchange key'). It stops short of mentioning update frequency or failure behavior, but covers the key behavioral aspects for safe invocation.

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 compact and front-loaded, opening with the user-relevant question and then specifying outputs and positioning. Every sentence adds value: data sources, composition, output, and use case; no redundant metadata.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description enumerates the main return elements (named regime, pressure score, evidence) and the data sources, making the tool's behavior sufficiently specified. It does not detail the exact structure of the evidence, but that is minor for tool selection and invocation.

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?

The single parameter x_payment already has a schema description ('Signed x402 payment payload'), giving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, and the baseline for full schema coverage is 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?

Description clearly states the tool's function: it assesses which side of the perp market is over-leveraged and composes data into a named regime and pressure score. Phrases like 'not a raw feed' and 'pre-position read' explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools such as crypto_prices or crypto_market_metrics.

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 identifies a clear intended use case ('The pre-position read for a leveraged agent') and excludes one class of use ('not a raw feed'). However, it does not name specific alternative tools or provide detailed when-not-to-use conditions beyond the raw-feed exclusion.

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