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

Beyond the existing readOnlyHint=true annotation, the description adds valuable behavioral context: expired asks are removed at read time and no sensitive state is exposed. This gives the agent a clear picture of what to expect without contradicting annotations.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and each sentence adds distinct information: the first defines the data source, the second clarifies read-only behavior and exclusions.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema read-only tool, the description is fairly complete. It specifies the two data components (ask and settlement projection) and key behavioral aspects. However, it does not describe the return value's structure or format, which is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the description correctly omits parameter details. Schema coverage is trivially 100%, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4.

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 clearly states the tool reads a sanitized production Base Mainnet Market Right ask and finalized-settlement projection, giving a specific resource and scope. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling market tools like market_context_summary, so it stops short of a 5.

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 states it is read-only public state and lists exclusions (fixture, private wallet/signature, payment, authorization, synthetic liquidity), but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool over alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance. The context is implied but not actionable.

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