Full board: tiers + funding

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral value by disclosing that PARTIAL means insufficient scoring history and is reported honestly rather than guessed, and it clarifies the funding-stress overlay regime.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first defines the content, the second clarifies a data-quality convention, and the third gives usage direction and names the alternative. Information is dense but 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?

For a zero-parameter read-only tool with annotations covering idempotency and read-only behavior, the description is complete. It communicates the scope, the meaning of a status value, and how to navigate to more detailed alternatives.

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 and the schema is empty, so the description carries no parameter burden. The baseline of 4 applies because there are no parameters to explain.

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 resource (Undertow board's TIER ROW), enumerates the market segments covered, and explains the funding-stress overlay. It also distinguishes itself from the subscriber board_full tool, so an agent can tell exactly what this tool returns.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('how liquid are markets today' at one glance) and points to board_full as the fuller alternative. It mentions drilling into crypto with 'the other tools' without naming them, which is slightly vague, but overall usage context is clear.

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