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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile, so the description adds value by disclosing the concrete thresholds (funding at 0.0 for ≥4h, a z-score for divergence) and a per-call price of $0.003 or a Carry key. Cost disclosure ahead of invocation is genuinely useful. It does not describe how much data is returned or how the flags are ranked.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the flag inventory, then the commercial note, then the use case. Nothing is padded. The cost sentence interrupts the technical flow slightly, but overall it is tight and scannable.

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?

There is no output schema, and the flag names plus thresholds do a reasonable job of implying what comes back. However, a diagnostic tool with two free-form parameters and no required fields should say what an unfiltered call defaults to and what 'dex' expects, and it omits that.

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% and neither parameter is explained in the description. 'dex' presumably scopes the market and 'hours' (12–720) presumably sets a lookback window, but the description never says so—the '4 h' figure refers to the flag threshold, not the hours parameter. With both params undocumented in both places, the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 states exactly what the tool reports: three named flags (frozen_funding, stale_oracle, divergent_vs_peer) with their detection logic. That is a specific diagnostic resource, not a restatement of the name. It stops short of distinguishing itself from adjacent oracle siblings such as oracle_board or oracle_track_record.

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 final sentence gives explicit context: use it to check frozen funding, stale oracles, or diverging HIP-3 legs 'before trusting a market'. That is a clear trigger condition. No exclusion rules or named alternatives are provided, which keeps it at 4 rather than 5.

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