Full board: tiers + funding

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, closed world), so the bar is lower. The description adds real value beyond that by defining the PARTIAL status semantics ('missing history or unpassed replay, never calm'), which is non-obvious domain behavior an agent could easily misread.

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?

It is very short, which is appropriate, but the first sentence is a verbless noun fragment that sacrifices clarity for compression. The status-definition sentence that follows is the strongest part and is well placed, though the overall structure is not front-loaded around what the tool does.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return content. It names the major components (tiers, funding, counts, reasons) and clarifies the PARTIAL value, but never explains what the tiers measure or why an agent would need the board, leaving the picture partial for a zero-param reporting tool.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline for a no-param tool applies.

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 enumerates what the tool surfaces ('nine segment tiers, Seiche funding, measure counts and replay/withholding reasons'), which gives a rough sense of scope, but never states a verb or a clear action (return? compute? assemble?). It also does nothing to distinguish itself from siblings like depth_episodes or unwind_watch that plausibly touch similar liquidity concepts.

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 statement of when to call this tool, what conditions make it appropriate, or what sibling to use instead. The only conditional guidance is about interpreting a PARTIAL result, not about selecting the tool.

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