futures_market_overview

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds return behavior (a dict with count and OHLCV data) and sorting by volume, providing some context beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose details like pagination, potential rate limits, or exact sort direction.

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 concise and well-structured with a clear purpose sentence followed by Args and Returns sections. Each parameter is documented on its own line with meaningful details, and there is no wasted text.

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 read-only overview tool with four optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides essential information: parameters, defaults, and return structure. It lacks an example or note on sort direction (descending assumed), but is otherwise sufficient for correct 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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries full responsibility for parameter explanations. It provides detailed semantics for all four parameters: category with enumerated values, exchanges with region breakdowns, limit with default, and volume_min with filter behavior. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 opens with 'Top futures contracts sorted by trading volume,' clearly indicating the tool's scope and primary function. It lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list,' and while it distinguishes itself through category/exchange filters, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like futures_top_movers.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as futures_top_movers or futures_category_snapshot. The parameter list implies usage scenarios (e.g., filtering by category or exchanges), but there is no explicit context or exclusion criteria.

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