Order-flow toxicity (VPIN) for BTC, ETH, SOL perps

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

Beyond the read-only annotation, the description explains the VPIN scale, percentile, danger threshold, 24h average, historical implication, and the crucial caveat that VPIN says nothing about direction. This adds substantial interpretation and safety context that annotations alone do not provide.

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?

Two dense sentences front-load the usage trigger and then summarize the return values and interpretation. Every clause carries useful information, with no redundant restatement of the name or annotations.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description fully carries the burden by stating what is returned, how to interpret VPIN, the historical meaning, and the direction caveat. An agent has enough information to call and explain the result 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 tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The baseline for a parameterless tool applies, and nothing in the description misrepresents inputs.

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 metric (VPIN order-flow toxicity) and asset scope (BTC, ETH, SOL perps), plus the exact user questions it answers. It is distinguishable from general positioning or pressure siblings because it is explicitly about informed/toxic order flow and market-maker pressure.

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?

It gives clear triggering conditions: users asking about informed or toxic flow, VPIN, or market-maker pressure. It does not explicitly name when not to use it or which sibling to use instead, so it falls short of the top score.

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