Live Coin Risk Snapshot

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds temporal scope ('current') and enumerates the risk dimensions returned, but it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as data freshness, formatting quirks, or limits. This is adequate but not richly transparent.

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 compact sentences: purpose, usage triggers, and returned content. It is front-loaded with the core action, every sentence earns its place, and there is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by listing seven return categories (OI, wallet count, long/short posture, position-size concentration, top positions, liquidation heatmap, 7-day liquidation totals). This gives an agent a solid mental model of the result. It is not a 5 because the exact shape of the heatmap and toon-format output is left unspecified.

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%, with both 'coin' and 'useToonFormat' already having clear descriptions including the prefix convention for builder dex markets. The tool description itself adds no new parameter-level meaning, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get the current risk snapshot for a single coin.' It distinguishes itself from siblings like live_coin_risk_history and live_risk_overview via 'current' and 'single coin,' and reinforces intent with concrete user questions and a list of returned risk dimensions.

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 gives explicit trigger scenarios ('is BTC crowded?', 'who is holding the risk?', 'how liquidation-prone is this market right now?'), making the intended use clear. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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