pulse_exchange_positions

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a caching behavior ('Cached up to 120s'), which is important for timeliness expectations. It also describes the return data structure (split gross profits/losses). While it does not explicitly state read-only semantics or authentication needs, the description of a query returning aggregated stats strongly implies a safe read operation, and the provided details are sufficient for the agent's decision-making.

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 dense sentences plus a parenthetical about caching. Every word adds value: it defines the scope ('by dex'), enumerates data fields, provides example questions, and notes caching. No fluff. Front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

For a tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers essential aspects: purpose, data returned, caching, and usage context. It lacks explicit mention of which exchanges are supported (implied by 'by dex' but not enumerated) and could clarify what 'whole exchange' means. Still, it is largely complete and leaves little ambiguity for an AI agent.

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?

The schema documents the single parameter (useToonFormat) with 100% coverage, including default and behavior. The human description does not mention this parameter at all, adding no extra meaning. According to the rubric, when schema coverage > 80%, baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter guidance beyond the schema, so a 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 uses a specific verb ('vitals by dex') and resource ('positions'), and enumerates exact data points: open positions, wallets, 24h flow, closed positions, liquidations, total realized PNL. Example questions ('how many positions open on Hyperliquid?') ground the purpose. It distinguishes from siblings like pulse_global_stats (broader) and market_positions (per-market) by specifying 'exchange-wide' aggregation.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: when needing exchange-level open positions, wallet counts, and 24h PNL flow. The example questions ('how many positions are open on Hyperliquid?') further guide the agent. However, it does not explicitly state when *not* to use it or mention alternative sibling tools for more granular data, which would elevate the score.

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