Exchange coverage: OI, volume, funding and pegs across 43 exchanges

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds behavioral context: results are latest 10-minute snapshots, cover 56 feeds on 43 exchanges, and passing symbol yields per-venue rows. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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, front-loaded with usage triggers and followed by output details and parameter behavior. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition or filler.

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 tool with one optional parameter, no required fields, and simple output, the description covers the core data, temporal scope, venue coverage, and symbol behavior. No critical information is missing for an agent to decide when to call and how to call it 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the symbol parameter is documented as optional. The description adds meaningful semantics by explaining that passing a symbol produces per-venue rows for one coin, while omitting it returns aggregate snapshot data. This clarifies the parameter's effect beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool returns 10-minute snapshot aggregates of OI, volume, funding, and stablecoin pegs across 56 feeds on 43 exchanges. It enumerates specific user intents (total OI, venue OI leaders, DEX vs CEX share, funding dispersion) that distinguish it from sibling tools like get_open_interest or get_funding_heatmap.

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 says 'Call this when the user asks about...' and lists concrete scenarios, which is strong usage guidance. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the listed triggers make the appropriate context clear.

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