Squeeze Score (crowding)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context: it emphasizes 'Descriptive market data only,' requires a paid plan, and lists the specific inputs used to compute the score. No contradictions with annotations.

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 first sentence is informative and front-loaded, but the description contains redundancy: 'Descriptive, not a trade signal' and 'Descriptive market data only' say the same thing, and the developer plan is mentioned twice. It could be tightened without losing meaning.

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 description explains what the score is composed of and that it is descriptive, but with no output schema, it does not fully describe the return value (e.g., structure of the score and overexposed side). It also leaves the behavior of optional pair parameter ambiguous. This is a simple tool, but the description could round out operational details.

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 coverage is 0% and there is only one parameter, 'pair.' The description says 'per pair' but does not specify the expected format (e.g., 'BTCUSD' vs. 'BTC/USD') or behavior when omitted (e.g., return all pairs). While the param name is self-explanatory, the description adds minimal value 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 clearly states the tool produces a fused 0-100 crowding score per pair, enumerates the input components (funding, long/short accounts, taker imbalance, OI trend), and notes the overexposed side. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like whale_trades or market_snapshot by its synthetic scoring nature.

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 explicitly says 'Descriptive, not a trade signal,' which provides clear guidance on when to use it (information) vs. when not to (trading decisions). It also mentions the paid developer plan requirement. However, it does not name alternative tools or explicitly contrast with siblings, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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