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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world), so the description's added value is in data provenance and coverage limits: real-market public data also available in the sandbox, and liquidations only 'where published (OKX)'. It also sets expectations that output is 'figures, not a forecast'. It does not mention refresh cadence, caching, or whether an unavailable exchange is omitted versus null, which keeps it from a 5.

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 content is front-loaded with what is measured, then usage, then exclusion, then input, then next step — a sensible ordering with no filler. Some fragments ('Input: symbol (base coin).' / 'Next: size_position.') are terse to the point of feeling clipped, and the output-unit note slightly duplicates the output schema, but nothing is wasted.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't document return shapes, and it still supplies what the schema cannot: data provenance, per-exchange breakdown semantics, exchange-specific liquidation coverage, and unit conventions. For a one-parameter read-only tool this is everything an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is already documented as 'Base coin, e.g. BTC', so the description's 'Input: symbol (base coin)' adds essentially nothing beyond the schema. The unit notes ('Changes in basis points, account share 0-1') describe output formatting rather than the parameter, 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 verb+resource (positioning in one perpetual futures coin) and enumerates the exact measures returned: open interest in coins and USD with 1h/24h change, share of accounts net long, and last-hour liquidations. It also explicitly separates itself from a nearby sibling by stating it is 'Not for funding (use compare_funding_rates)'.

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?

It gives two concrete use cases ('judge crowding before a trade or explain a move'), an explicit exclusion ('Not for funding'), the sibling to use instead, and even a downstream step ('Next: size_position'). An agent has no ambiguity about when to select this tool versus compare_funding_rates or size_position.

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