HTX Get Market Context

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

The description adds the behavioral trait of being a non-streaming snapshot, but the read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive aspects are already covered by annotations. It does not mention rate limits or other potential side effects.

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 two sentences, immediately states the purpose, and efficiently covers usage and nature without any fluff. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

The description provides purpose, usage conditions, and a behavioral distinction, which is sufficient given the full schema and output schema. The only minor gap is the vague 'raw HTX envelopes' phrasing, which could reduce clarity.

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 baseline is 3. The tool description does not add parameter-specific meanings beyond what is already in the schema, but it doesn't need to.

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 the core purpose—'return bounded research context'—and enumerates the included data types (OHLCV, recent public trade tape, swap funding history). However, the phrase 'raw HTX envelopes' is ambiguous and could confuse agents.

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?

It clearly specifies when to use the tool ('when indicators alone are insufficient') and contrasts it with streaming via 'REST snapshot, not a low-latency stream'. This gives agents a concrete decision condition.

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