Cross-Market Asset

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond annotations: it resolves synonyms (PAXG to GOLD), computes biasRange as max-min netBias across venues, and returns both per-venue and cross-venue totals.

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 with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the return payload, the second adds the biasRange insight and synonym behavior, and the closing examples cover usage. Every clause earns its place.

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 there is no output schema, the description does a solid job listing the main return components and giving concrete invocation triggers. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning the compact toon format effect of useToonFormat or defining 'net bias', but the current level is sufficient for an agent to select and call the tool 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters well. The description adds a helpful synonym example ('PAXG resolves to GOLD') and canonical name examples, but this is largely redundant with the schema's own description for the canonical parameter.

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 states a specific verb ('Cross-market aggregation') and resource ('one asset'), and lists concrete returned fields: per-venue positions, notional, net bias, unique wallets, leverage, cross-venue total, and biasRange. It distinguishes itself from single-venue or market-wide tools by emphasizing per-venue and cross-venue views.

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 provides explicit use-case examples: 'is gold crowded?', 'do different dexes disagree on BTC direction?', 'total OI on ETH across all venues?'. This gives clear context for when to invoke it, though it does not explicitly name when not to use it or direct to alternative sibling tools.

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