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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state the authentication requirement (EnsoTrade Pro API key) and points to the market_glossary for interpretation, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, potential rate limits, or error behavior. The existing output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but more behavioral context would be expected.

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 three sentences with no filler. The core definition of the two indicators is front-loaded, followed by the auth requirement and parameter clarification. It is appropriately sized for the complexity and each sentence contributes information.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what the metrics mean, the required auth, the parameter format, and where to learn more. However, it lacks any usage context (e.g., when to choose this over siblings) and does not mention constraints like time periods or market scope. This is adequate but not complete.

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?

The input schema provides only the parameter name 'coin' with no description, so schema description coverage is 0%. The description compensates by explaining that `coin` is a ticker (e.g., 'btc'), giving the agent the format and an example. This adds meaningful semantic value beyond the bare schema.

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 defines the tool as providing a 'Toxic Carry Score' and an 'Open Interest Quality Index', explaining what each measures. While it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'calculates', the composite indicator is clearly specified. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_funding or get_order_flow, but the name and content make its purpose reasonably clear.

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?

No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_funding or get_order_flow. The description mentions the need for an API key and how to read the numbers, but does not state conditions or scenarios where it should be preferred. Implied usage is possible but not explicit.

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