live_mark_dislocations

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

The description discloses that the tool returns timestamped mark price, oracle price, and basis percentage over the last 30 days. Although no annotations exist, the description implies a read-only operation, and it clearly states the output structure, leaving no major behavioral ambiguity.

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?

Two sentences: first states purpose and resource, second provides usage example and return summary. Every word earns its place, no fluff, and key information is front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool has three well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what is returned (mark price, oracle price, basis percentage) and the time range. It lacks explicit field names for the output, but the examples and parameter descriptions compensate, making it complete enough for an agent to use 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with comprehensive parameter descriptions. The main description does not add new meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 retrieves historical mark/oracle dislocation data for a specific coin, using a specific verb 'Get' and resource. It includes example questions to illustrate usage, effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on other metrics like risk history or cohort bias.

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?

Provides clear usage context with example questions ('did basis stress or oracle drift show up before liquidations?'). While it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternatives, the example sufficiently guides the agent to appropriate scenarios.

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