New and delisted perpetual contracts

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and open-world, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds useful behavioral context: the data comes from six exchanges, is refreshed by an hourly scan, and includes both listings and delistings.

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 sentences with zero filler. The trigger conditions are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence states the return scope. Every word 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 read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers when to call it and what it returns. It could describe the response format, but the tool is simple enough that this omission is a minor gap.

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 only parameter, days, is fully documented in the schema with range, default, and a note about paid data. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but the schema covers 100% of the parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 names specific user intents: new perpetuals listed, which exchange listed a coin first, and delistings. It clearly distinguishes this tool from the broader market-data siblings by focusing on listing/delisting events across six exchanges.

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?

Explicitly says 'Call this when the user asks...' and lists three concrete question types, giving clear routing guidance. It does not name alternative tools or exclusion criteria, but the usage context is clear enough for an agent to handle most listing/delisting questions.

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