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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the authentication requirement (Pro API key via Bearer auth) and where to generate it, which is critical for invoking the tool. It also lists the return data fields, giving clear behavioral expectations. It does not mention rate limits or error behavior, but for a read-only data fetch this is sufficient.

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 compact: one sentence listing output data, one sentence covering authentication and parameter semantics. Every clause adds value, and there is no redundancy or 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (single parameter, authentication needed, rich output), the description covers all necessary invocation details: what the tool returns, how to authenticate, and what the parameter means. Since an output schema exists, the lack of explicit return format documentation is not a gap.

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 schema provides only the parameter name and type (coin: string) with 0% description coverage. The description fully compensates by explaining that 'coin' is a ticker and gives a concrete example ('btc'). This adds essential meaning beyond the schema and leaves no ambiguity.

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 'Full perp dashboard for a crypto coin' and immediately enumerates the exact data points included (mark price, index price, funding rate, open interest, etc.). It is a specific verb+resource statement that clearly differentiates this tool from siblings that focus on single data streams like get_funding.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention exclusions. However, the term 'Full perp dashboard' implies a comprehensive view, which guides an agent to prefer it when a broad market overview is needed. Lacking direct comparison to sibling tools, it is adequate but not explicit.

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