Market Overview

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the data source (ONE ticker/24hr ALL call joined with exchangeInfo), the shape of the returned panel, top volumes, status counts, fresh listings, sort modes, and limit cap. No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact and well-organized: first sentence covers the core output, second covers sort options, third covers the limit constraint, and fourth gives a concrete example. Every sentence adds useful information with no filler.

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 that an output schema exists and annotations cover the read-only safety profile, the description provides enough detail for an agent to call the tool correctly. It fully explains the two parameters and the nature of the returned overview. Explicit sibling routing would improve completeness, but it is not essential for invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by defining the allowed sort values (volume, change, listings), the default sort, and the maximum limit. It could clarify the exact meaning of 'change' and 'listings' sort behavior, but the provided parameter guidance is largely sufficient.

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 identifies the tool as a futures market overview and enumerates the specific data elements returned (symbol, last, 24h change %, quote volume, trades count, top volumes, status counts, fresh listings). This differentiates it from sibling tools like spot_overview and funding_overview by market domain, though it lacks a direct action verb like 'retrieves' or 'lists'.

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 by stating this is for futures markets, which implies use when a futures market overview is needed rather than spot, funding, or order book data. It does not explicitly name alternatives or give exclusion criteria, but the domain distinction is enough for basic selection.

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