Derivatives pressure scores (funding + OI + basis composite)

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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, open-world operation. The description adds useful behavioral context: each symbol gets a composite score from funding, 1h/4h/24h OI deltas and basis, plus a LONG/SHORT/NEUTRAL direction and a regime label. It does not discuss rate limits or auth needs, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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, all front-loaded and purposeful. The trigger, the alternative tool, and the returned content each appear without filler or repetition.

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 two-parameter, no-required-filter read tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies everything else an agent needs: when to call it, the main alternative, and what the output contains.

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 100%, so both limit and symbol are already well documented in the schema. The description does not add syntax, defaults, or filtering semantics beyond what the schema provides, which is the baseline expectation when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb and resource: it returns a 0-100 derivatives pressure/stress score per symbol. It explicitly distinguishes itself from get_top_movers, the sibling used for a quick top-10 ranking, so an agent can separate the two without reading either schema.

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 explicit trigger conditions: user asks which coins are crowded/over-leveraged or asks for pressure scores of specific coins. It also names the alternative tool, get_top_movers, and the condition that selects it.

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