Market snapshot

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context by specifying 'Descriptive market data only' and explaining access tiers (keyless free pairs vs. paid plan for all pairs), which goes beyond the annotation hints.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose. It is efficient, though the embedded developer plan URL adds minor noise and could be considered promotional rather than essential for tool invocation.

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 one-parameter tool, the description covers the data returned and access restrictions. However, it lacks the pair format and any indication of the output shape (no output schema), leaving minor but important gaps for correct usage.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for the only parameter 'pair'. The description mentions 'for a pair' but provides no format, examples, or whether it is required (required count is 0), leaving the agent unsure how to populate the pair parameter correctly.

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's function: 'One-call market state for a pair' with specific data fields (last price, 24h stats, funding rate, open interest, liquidations) across 15 exchanges. This distinguishes it from siblings like market_history or market_overview by emphasizing a comprehensive current snapshot.

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?

Usage context is implied via 'One-call market state' suggesting a quick snapshot, and the description notes keyless versus paid plan access. However, it does not explicitly compare against alternative tools (e.g., market_history for historical data) or state when not to use it.

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