Coverage registry: which venues and data types we collect, how, and how fresh

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds valuable behavioral nuance: the registry is 'live', includes freshness for each feed, and the caveat that 'snapshots[].country is the jurisdiction only when the venue states one; it is null for most venues, so do not read null as unknown risk.' This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent interpret null values correctly.

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?

Three sentences, each with a distinct job: trigger conditions, return content summary, and a field-level caveat. No filler or repeated schema information, and the most important usage signal is front-loaded.

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 output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values, and it does enumerate most major categories: liquidation feeds, snapshot feeds, funding arbitrage legs, positioning sources, whale tape, spot minutes, and Hyperliquid whale scan with freshness. It is complete enough to call and interpret the tool, though a more explicit shape or example would make it fully self-sufficient.

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 the baseline is 4. The description never needs to explain parameter syntax or semantics, and the schema is trivially complete at 100% coverage.

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 states the tool returns the 'live coverage registry' and enumerates its contents, so an agent knows it is a read-only metadata/inventory tool. It does not explicitly contrast itself with related siblings like get_venue_markets or get_venue_profile, but the title and content make the scope clear.

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 opens with explicit trigger conditions: 'Call this when the user asks which exchanges sit behind a ByKaranteli number, whether a feed is complete or sampled, since when a venue is collected, or how fresh the data is.' This is strong usage guidance, though it stops short of saying when not to use this tool versus a sibling.

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