Positioning: long/short ratios, taker buy/sell and CVD across exchanges

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description does not contradict them. It adds genuinely useful behavior beyond the annotations: a 15-minute refresh cadence, the fixed symbol universe, and a venue-by-venue breakdown of which ratio types come from which exchange.

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 trigger conditions are front-loaded before the deliverable details, and the sentence is dense but not padded. Every clause contributes information—venue coverage, ratio types, refresh cadence—though it is a long single sentence with many parentheticals.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining returns, and it does so thoroughly: per-venue ratio breakdowns plus a distinct BTC/ETH/SOL CVD series. For a one-parameter read-only tool this is nearly complete; the only gap is unspecified behavior when symbol is omitted, which the schema itself leaves optional.

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 100%, with 'symbol' already described as a Binance symbol with an example. The description adds only a modest tie-in: the symbol should be a perpetual within the 30 most traded set. That is enrichment, not replacement, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 the resource ('positioning board statistics' for perps) and specifies exact data types: long/short ratios, retail vs. top-trader positioning, taker buy/sell ratio, and CVD. It scopes the universe concretely (30 most traded Binance USDT perps across all recorded venues), which clearly differentiates it from get_cot_positioning and other sibling market metrics.

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?

Opens with an explicit trigger: 'Call this when the user asks about...' followed by a concrete list of query patterns that route here. It gives clear context for when to use the tool, but never names when-not-to-use it or points to alternatives such as get_cot_positioning for CFTC positioning data.

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