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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds behavioral context beyond annotations by enumerating the returned fields, including anomaly flags, and noting that setting 'depth' adds cost_to_move fields, which an agent would not infer from the annotations alone.

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 four sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: field inventory, depth behavior, parameter controls, and sibling distinction. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

For a read-only tool with a full output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description covers the key aspects: what the tool returns, how to narrow and sort, and when to use an alternative. The only missing details are pagination limits and potential rate limits, which are minor given the output schema and clear safety hints.

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 50%, with page, depth, and order lacking schema descriptions. The description partially compensates by explaining depth's effect and that order sorts by trust score or volume, but for page it only says 'page with page', which adds no meaning. It does not fully clarify the exact semantics of all undocumented parameters.

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 opens with 'Every trading pair for one coin across venues', which clearly identifies the resource (trading pairs) and scope (one coin). It also explicitly names the sibling tool 'get_coingecko_exchanges_id_tickers' to differentiate the two, removing any ambiguity about which tool to select.

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 explicitly states the use case: 'Use it to compare where one asset trades and how deep each book is' and provides a direct alternative: 'For every pair on one venue regardless of coin, use get_coingecko_exchanges_id_tickers.' This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance with no need for inference.

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