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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: preserving native quote/collateral currency, contract type, and the normalization rule (mark / priceMultiplier) plus a warning not to conflate current and last-paid funding. That is real interpretation guidance an agent would otherwise lack.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the normalization caveat. Each clause earns its place; no filler.

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 no output schema and no param descriptions, the description carries extraneous burden but delivers the data-shape guidance the agent needs to interpret the comparison. It still omits pagination/limit behavior, leaving a modest gap for a two-param tool.

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 0% and there are two parameters. baseAsset is only obliquely implied by 'one canonical base asset', and the limit parameter (default 30, max 100) is never mentioned. The description does not 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?

States a specific verb (compare) and a precise resource scope: enabled venue contracts for one canonical base asset. It is distinguishable from perps.board/rankings by the 'compare across venues for a single base asset' framing, though it does not name those siblings directly.

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 'one canonical base asset' scope implies when to reach for this versus broader perps tools, and the funding caveat implies how to interpret results. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or alternative routing despite four sibling perps tools.

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