getLongShortRatio

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and open-world, so the bar is lower. The description adds valuable behavioral context: no authentication required, cursor-based pagination via nextPageCursor, supported product types, and the buyRatio/sellRatio calculation formulas. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Well-structured with headings and bullets, but there is noticeable redundancy: required parameters and cursor pagination are each stated twice, and the 'Agent hint' largely repeats earlier content. The description is informative but could be tightened without losing value.

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 7-parameter, no-output-schema query tool, the description covers purpose, calculation logic, supported products, required parameters, time-range handling, pagination, and authentication status. It does not describe the response format in detail, but the formulas and pagination guidance provide sufficient context 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the required parameters (category, symbol, period), enumerates period values, specifies startTime/endTime in milliseconds, and explains cursor usage. It does not describe limit or symbol format, but schema enums and defaults cover some of that gap.

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?

Description states a specific verb and resource: 'Query the net long and short position ratios as percentages of all position holders.' It clearly identifies the tool as a market sentiment indicator for derivatives, which distinguishes it from sibling market-data tools like getOpenInterest or getTickers.

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?

Provides explicit 'Use this endpoint when you need to' bullets covering sentiment measurement, tracking changes over time, and historical analysis at various intervals. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the use cases are clear enough to guide selection.

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