scan_trade_calls

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

The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: 'Read-only: reads live exchange APIs, places no orders.' This clarifies external data access and confirms non-mutating behavior, complementing the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations. No contradiction exists.

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 dense sentences: the first states core purpose and output, the second gives usage guidance versus a sibling, and the third covers read-only safety. No wasted words, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

Despite having no output schema and 11 parameters, the description communicates the tool's scope, output nature (ranked calls with confidence and market regime), and safety. It could mention output structure in more detail, but the combination of a thorough schema and this succinct overview makes it adequately complete.

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 explains all 11 parameters. The description does not need to repeat parameter details; the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the description adds no extra param-level meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Returns ranked BUY SELL HOLD trade calls across the top crypto perpetual futures by open interest.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings, especially get_trade_call, by framing this as a whole-market scan with confidence and market regime.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Use this for breadth; use get_trade_call for per-coin depth and reasoning.' This names the alternative and gives a clear condition for choosing this tool, satisfying the when/alternative requirement.

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