getInsurancePool

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

Annotations state readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is already known. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: update frequency (isolated pool every minute, shared pool daily), no authentication required, and that omitting coin returns all insurance coins. This helps the agent set expectations without contradiction.

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 well-structured with bold text and bullets, but it contains redundancy: the 'Agent hint' paragraph largely repeats the opening description, the 'use for' bullets, and the ADL exclusion. Front-loading is good, but the repetition adds unnecessary length.

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?

This is a simple read-only tool with one optional parameter, no output schema, and readOnly/openWorld annotations. The description covers purpose, use cases, exclusions, parameter behavior, update frequency, and authentication. For its complexity, the definition is adequately complete for an agent to select and invoke it 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the meaning for the single optional coin parameter. It does this well by explaining that omitting coin returns all coins, and providing concrete examples like USDT and BTC. This goes beyond the bare string type in the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: query Bybit's insurance pool balances and USD-denominated values for settlement coins. It further distinguishes itself from getAdlAlert by explicitly saying ADL threshold details should use that sibling instead, so an agent can disambiguate this tool from its siblings.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: monitoring insurance fund health, understanding shared vs isolated pools, and checking pool balance as a risk indicator. It also gives a clear exclusion: do not use for ADL threshold details, use getAdlAlert instead. This is unambiguous routing guidance.

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