get_market_regime

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the composite methodology ('Composite verdict blends trend ranging and cross-venue funding rate sentiment') and adds trust signals ('Verified track record, on-chain verified merkle anchor'). This exceeds the baseline for annotation-covered tools.

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 at five short sentences, with the core function front-loaded. Each sentence adds value: classification output, methodology, alternative tool, safety profile, and trust. However, the final trust sentence ('Verified track record...') is somewhat extraneous for tool selection, making it slightly less tight than a two-sentence ideal.

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 (3 params, no output schema), the description covers the key aspects: what it returns ('confidence and a strategy hint'), its scope ('one crypto perpetual futures'), methodology, and safety. It does not detail the exact output structure or error cases, but with no output schema, the description carries this burden reasonably well for a classifier tool.

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%, so the schema already documents coin, exchange, and timeframe clearly. The description does not add explicit parameter syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies. The mention of 'crypto perpetual futures' implies parameters are crypto-specific but adds no new parameter semantics.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Returns the market regime' with explicit classifications (TRENDING_UP, TRENDING_DOWN, RANGING, VOLATILE) and scopes to 'one crypto perpetual futures'. It also differentiates from the sibling/alternative tool by stating 'For a US equity use get_equity_regime', making the tool's purpose clear and distinct.

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 provides explicit usage context: it is for crypto perpetual futures, and it explicitly directs US equity queries to an alternative tool ('use get_equity_regime'). It also notes 'Read-only, live exchange APIs', implying it can be safely used for real-time checks. This clearly answers when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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