Market overview + regime

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive operation. The description adds useful behavioral context: it is descriptive only (no predictions), and passing a coin returns a single row without paging. This goes beyond the annotations to help the agent understand how the tool behaves.

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 three sentences plus a link. It front-loads the main purpose and includes the key parameter note. The developer-plan URL is extra but not disruptive. It is reasonably concise with no repeated information.

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?

The tool has 2 parameters, no output schema, and only basic annotations. The description lists the data categories returned (totals, whale net flow, BTC regime, top rows) and explains the coin parameter. However, it doesn't describe the response format (e.g., object vs array) or the limit parameter, so an agent might lack full clarity on how to use 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?

The description explains the 'coin' parameter: passing it returns one symbol's row directly without paging. However, the 'limit' parameter is not described at all, and with 0% schema coverage, the description only partially compensates for the schema's silent parameters. It does not clarify what limit controls (e.g., number of top rows).

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 states the tool is a one-call market scan that returns totals (volume, OI, liquidations, mcap), 24h whale net flow, BTC risk regime, and top rows by volume. This gives a specific verb (scan) and resource (market data). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like market_snapshot or whale_flow, so it misses the top tier of distinguishing use cases.

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 implies this is the go-to for a broad market overview ('One-call market scan') and explains the coin parameter usage. It also notes 'Descriptive market data only' and points to a developer plan for more depth, but it doesn't explicitly say when to use this tool instead of siblings like whale_flow or liquidations. This is implied rather than explicit.

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