getAdlAlert

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: data updates every 1 minute, no authentication required, supported product types, and the meaning of pnlRatio relative to insurancePnlRatio for assessing ADL risk. It also mentions key returned fields, which helps the agent interpret results.

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 front-loaded with purpose and use cases, but it repeats the same information multiple times: 'Data updates every 1 minute' appears twice, and the 'Agent hint' section largely duplicates the earlier statements about omitting symbol and using getInsurancePool. The content is organized, but not every sentence earns its place.

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 simple one-parameter read-only endpoint with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it covers purpose, supported products, refresh cadence, auth requirements, field semantics, optional-parameter behavior, and the relevant alternative tool. An agent has enough context to call the endpoint correctly.

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 input schema has only an undocumented optional string symbol (0% schema coverage), so the description carries the burden. It adds the critical semantic that omitting symbol retrieves data for all symbols and that symbols refer to specific contract symbols. It stops short of giving exact symbol formats or examples, but the single optional parameter is well explained.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Query ADL (Auto-Deleveraging) alert data and insurance fund metrics for derivative contracts.' It clearly states what the tool returns (ADL risk level and activation thresholds) and explicitly distinguishes it from getInsurancePool by saying not to use it for general insurance pool balances.

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 explicit use cases ('Monitor ADL risk levels...', 'Check the current insurance fund balance...') and an explicit when-not-to-use rule with the alternative named: 'Do not use this endpoint for general insurance pool balances — use getInsurancePool instead.' It also explains the optional symbol behavior and supported products.

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