updown_slippage_threshold

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

The description discloses the decay from 9500 to 5500 BPS over the round. However, it does not explain how parameters 'asset' and 'tf' affect the threshold, nor the output format, despite no annotations being provided.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, no repetition, and front-loads the core purpose. Every word contributes value without unnecessary elaboration.

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 a simple purpose, the description omits critical context such as how the round is defined, whether the threshold depends on asset/timeframe, and the expected return value. Given no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves significant gaps.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to explain the meaning or role of the two required parameters (asset and tf). The user must rely solely on the schema enum for asset and the name 'tf'.

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 returns the current slippage threshold for the active round, with decay values. It distinguishes itself from sibling 'updown' tools by specifically mentioning the threshold decay, but lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'updown_tf_duration' or 'updown_min_bet'. The description only explains behavior without contextualizing its place among sibling tools.

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