Venue profile: everything ByKaranteli records about one exchange

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 the useful behavioral detail that omitting the venue returns the list of recorded venues rather than failing, and it gives a sense of response breadth without promising a specific format.

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 condition is front-loaded, and the long enumeration of returned content is relevant and specific, not filler. It is dense and somewhat long, but every clause informs the agent about what the profile contains.

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?

With only one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides a thorough inventory of the tool's return content and the no-argument fallback. It does not describe response structure or error cases, but those are less critical given the tool's descriptive scope.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by giving concrete examples of valid venue values (Bybit, OKX, Gate, KuCoin) and explaining the behavior when the optional parameter is absent.

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 action ('get venue profile'), specifies the target resource ('a specific exchange'), and enumerates the many data categories it returns. It also clarifies the no-argument fallback (returns the list of recorded venues), making its purpose unmistakable and distinguishable from sibling tools.

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?

'Call this when the user asks about a specific exchange' provides an explicit conditional trigger. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the trigger is clear enough that an agent can decide when to invoke it versus other market-data tools.

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