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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that Bearer-auth with a Pro API key is required for real-time data, which is useful context. However, it doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, or how the output is structured beyond the described concepts.

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 concise and packs necessary information into a few sentences. The main purpose and example queries are front-loaded, followed by the parameter format and auth note. It is tight, though the line break after 'short squeeze' adds slight awkwardness.

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 present, the description is fairly complete. It explains the domain concept, gives usage examples, parameter format, and auth requirements. It could have briefly mentioned the output nature (e.g., is it a report object?) but the output schema likely covers that.

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 has a single parameter 'coin' with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description compensates by specifying 'coin' = ticker e.g. 'btc', adding meaning beyond the bare string type. However, since there is only one parameter and the example is clear, this is adequate but not extensive.

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's purpose: it provides positioning regime, open interest, and taker imbalance to characterize crypto moves. Specific examples of queries are given ('crypto order flow', 'open interest change', 'is this a short squeeze'), distinguishing it from potential siblings about funding, pressure, or execution.

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 explicitly mentions sample queries that an agent might use to select this tool, giving clear context for use. It does not explicitly mention when not to use alternatives, but the example queries effectively signal the intended use case.

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