Get units and scaling

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether this is a read-only lookup, whether it returns data for a single market or all markets, whether it requires prior context like a selected market, or what the response shape is. The fragment 'Oracle decimals, futures contract unit/ticks, and perps QUANTITY_DECIMALS / order scaling' hints at the data returned but not the behavior.

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 very short, which is good, but it is a fragment rather than a complete sentence and lacks a leading verb. It front-loads the key terms but does not structure them into a clear statement. It earns points for brevity but loses points for grammatical incompleteness.

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 and no annotations, the description is the only source of information. It names several data categories but does not explain how they relate, whether the tool returns a combined object or separate values, or how an agent should use the result. For a zero-parameter tool, the description should at least state the return shape or the intended use case.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. The description adds some semantic value by naming the categories of data returned (Oracle decimals, contract unit/ticks, QUANTITY_DECIMALS/order scaling), which helps an agent understand what the no-argument call will produce. Baseline 4 for zero-parameter tools 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 lists several distinct concepts (Oracle decimals, futures contract unit/ticks, perps QUANTITY_DECIMALS / order scaling) without a single clear verb or resource. It reads as a fragment rather than a sentence, so an agent can infer it returns some unit/scaling configuration, but the purpose is not crisply stated. It is not a tautology, but it lacks a clear action like 'Get' or 'Return' and does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes get_market_rules, get_margin_model, and get_deployments, which could plausibly overlap with market configuration data, but the description does not mention any of them or provide selection criteria. An agent would have to guess whether to call this or a sibling.

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