Depth concentration today

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 useful interpretive context about what low effective venue count implies, without contradicting the annotations or introducing hidden 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?

Two tight sentences front-load the core question, immediately enumerate the output fields, define HHI inline, and add a meaningful interpretation. No filler or redundant restating of the title.

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 input schema and no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining what the agent will receive. It lists every major output component and the practical significance of the result, making the tool complete for correct invocation and interpretation.

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 there is no parameter documentation burden. The description instead focuses on the output metrics, which is appropriate. Baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4.

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 daily readout of BTC depth concentration, specifying the exact metrics: largest venue share, HHI, effective venue count, and per-venue depth in USD. It also contrasts itself with 'exit_desk_full' by noting what that alternative adds, helping an agent distinguish it from related tools.

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 gives context for when the readout matters ('Low effective venue count means an exit depends on one venue staying open') and explicitly mentions an alternative for ETH or venue-failure scenarios. It could more directly name which sibling tools to use instead, but the guidance is sufficient.

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