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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered without the description's help. The description does add genuine semantic context by warning that past fills are not a quote and listed liquidity is not a guarantee of a fill, which shapes how results should be interpreted, but it says nothing about return shape, freshness windows, or empty-result behavior.

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?

Three tight sentences with the capability, the filters, and the caveats in that order; nothing is padded. The phrase "by route" is slightly opaque, and the format examples could have been folded into a single clause, but the front-loading is sound.

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 two-parameter, optional-filter read tool with no output schema, this is close to sufficient: it says what data comes back at a high level and how to narrow it. A brief note on combining filters or on what an empty response means would close the remaining 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden, and it does: it names both parameters, supplies example values ('GBP', 'revolut'), and makes the casing conventions explicit, which the bare regex patterns alone would only hint at. What it does not clarify is the OR-versus-AND relationship when both filters are supplied, nor the default behavior with zero parameters.

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 and resource ("Read Peer protocol market data") and enumerates what is returned: 30-day seller rates from past fills and current listed USDC liquidity. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools (peerlytics_activity, peerlytics_receipt), so the agent must infer the boundary from the names alone.

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?

Gives concrete filtering guidance, including valid value formats ("ISO currency code (GBP)", "lowercase platform id (revolut)"), which implicitly tells the agent how each filter is used. It stops short of stating when to prefer this tool over the sibling activity or receipt tools, or whether the two filters can be combined.

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