long_short_ratio

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention that this is a read-only operation, any rate limits, data source constraints, or update frequency. The example shows endpoint format but lacks behavioral details.

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 description is short but has redundancy (first sentence repeated). It is front-loaded with the purpose. Could be more concise by removing the duplicate sentence.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should describe return structure. It lists types of ratios but does not explain the format or fields. The tool is simple but for completeness, more detail on output is needed.

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%, so parameter details are already in the schema. The description adds the example URL and implies the mapping of symbol to USDT, but no additional meaning beyond schema. 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 clearly states it provides Binance long/short ratios (global, top-trader, position, taker buy/sell). It mentions being a companion to funding-oi, which helps distinguish from siblings. However, the purpose verb is implicit (fetch/get), and there is redundancy in the description.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The mention of 'Companion to funding-oi' hints at context but does not provide when-not or alternative tool comparisons. Siblings like sentiment or price are not contrasted.

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