pulse_cross_market_asset

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions synonym resolution and return fields, but does not state whether the operation is read-only, data freshness, rate limits, or error handling. The tool name suggests read-only, but not explicitly stated.

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 plus example usage; every sentence earns its place. Information is front-loaded and efficient without redundancy.

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?

Despite no output schema, description lists all return fields and usage scenarios, compensating well. For a complex cross-market tool, it provides sufficient context for an agent to correctly select and invoke it.

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%, yet description adds value by providing examples for 'canonical' and explaining synonym resolution. It also clarifies default behavior for 'useToonFormat'. Adds meaning beyond 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?

Description clearly states it performs cross-market aggregation for a single asset, listing specific return fields (per-venue longs/shorts, notional, net bias, etc.) and a cross-venue total. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on cross-venue data for one asset.

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 explicit usage examples like 'is gold crowded?' and 'total OI on ETH across all venues?', clearly indicating when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives.

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