Derivatives pressure scores (funding + OI + basis composite)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context by disclosing the 0-100 composite score inputs, the LONG/SHORT/NEUTRAL direction, and the plain-language regime label, which is important since no output schema exists. It could go further by stating the returned row/symbol field, but this is not a serious gap.

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 with no wasted words. The first sentence carries the primary trigger, the second routes to an alternative tool, and the third explains the output composition. Important information is front-loaded, and every sentence 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 two simple optional parameters and no output schema, the description supplies the essential operational context: when to use it, what it returns, how the score is composed, and which sibling to choose instead. The schema covers parameter details, and annotations cover safety, so nothing critical is missing.

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 the schema already fully documents limit and symbol, including defaults, sorting, and example formats. The description's mention of 'specific coins' and 'each symbol' weakly reinforces symbol semantics but does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 a specific resource (derivatives pressure scores), a precise verb-purpose (responding to crowded/over-leveraged coin queries), and the exact composite construction (funding, OI deltas, basis). It also clearly separates itself from get_top_movers, making the tool's identity unmistakable.

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 explicitly states when to call this tool ('when the user asks which coins are crowded or over-leveraged, or asks for the pressure/derivatives-stress score of specific coins') and gives a concrete alternative for a different use case ('For a quick top-10 ranking of the highest-stress coins right now, use get_top_movers instead'). This is model guidance.

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