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

With readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false already declaring a safe, closed-domain read, the description adds useful content-level context: the levels are anchored to the live price, sorted by side, and expressed as percent distance. It does not disclose snapshot timing/freshness ('today' is ambiguous), whether levels are truncated to a top-N, or what the response shape looks like despite no output schema.

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?

One dense sentence with no filler, front-loading the sorting rule before the content list. It reads as a noun phrase rather than a verb phrase ('Returns...'), which is slightly weaker for action framing but causes no ambiguity.

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 read tool this is nearly sufficient: the content and ordering are described, and annotations cover safety. The remaining gap is that there is no output schema, so the description is the only signal about return values, and it does not cover freshness, level counts, or formatting of the percent distance.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single market parameter carries an enum with all nine values spelled out, so the schema already does the parameter work. The description adds nothing about the market parameter (e.g., whether unsupported markets error or fall back), so baseline 3 applies.

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 names the resource precisely and enumerates its contents (order book walls, positioning levels, today's high/low/open, liquidation clusters) plus the ordering rule (sorted above and below the live price) and the derived field (distance in percent). That is far more specific than the title. It does not distinguish itself from siblings such as get_order_book or get_liquidation_heatmap, which cover overlapping data.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is a consolidated 'key levels for today' view, and the content list hints it is a summary alternative to the raw order book or liquidation tools. But the description never says when to prefer it over get_order_book or get_liquidation_heatmap, nor whether it is a live snapshot versus a daily cache.

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