get_market_regime

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, so the description's 'read-only' adds little. However, it adds valuable behavioral context: live exchange API dependency, the composite nature of the verdict (trend/ranging blended with cross-venue funding sentiment), and a verified track record via performance and merkle anchor references.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the return value, and no filler. Each sentence contributes a distinct piece of information: the output, the methodology, and the trusted/verification characteristics.

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 read-only classifier with three parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently conveys the return concept and input domain. It does not specify the confidence value format or exact response shape, but the output enumeration and annotations largely cover what an agent needs to call it correctly.

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. The description adds a small amount of context by framing the tool as targeting perpetual futures, but it does not materially extend parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 exact resource (market regime for one crypto perpetual futures), enumerates the possible regime values (TRENDING_UP, TRENDING_DOWN, RANGING, VOLATILE), and specifies the returned fields (confidence and strategy hint). This clearly differentiates it from sibling trade-call/signal tools.

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?

Use is implied: call this when a market-regime classification is needed for a coin, exchange, and timeframe. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over siblings like get_trade_signal, nor any when-not-to-use conditions.

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