chainvectorLongShort

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the metric's definition, cross-exchange scope, and bucket aggregation, providing useful context. However, it does not describe the return shape, units, or any operational details like pagination or limits.

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 two dense, information-rich sentences: the first defines the metric and scope, the second gives actionable interpretation. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 simple tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it defines the metric, explains its meaning, and signals when extremes are significant. Return-value structure is not detailed, but that is not critical for selecting and invoking this data-query 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 baseline is 3. The description's 'per bucket' aligns with the interval parameter but does not add meaningful new detail beyond what the schema already provides for symbol and interval.

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 clearly identifies the specific metric (long/short taker ratio per bucket, cross-exchange) and distinguishes it from other chainvector tools. It lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'fetches', so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

It gives interpretive context ('Extremes flag one-sided positioning that squeezes easily') that implies when the metric is valuable, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over similar chainvector metrics or mention alternatives. Usage is implied rather than directly stated.

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