leverage_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully discloses 'DB-backed, 30-min cache' and the market-level limitation, which tells the agent about data freshness and scope. It doesn't cover auth or rate limits, but for a read-only history endpoint the disclosed behaviors are the most relevant.

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 front-loaded with a clear summary, but it is somewhat redundant: the first sentence lists the metrics and then the second sentence repeats nearly the same list as 'One row per day'. 'Market-level' and 'daily' also appear multiple times, making it longer than necessary.

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 simple one-parameter history endpoint, the description is complete: it explains the row structure, lists every returned field, specifies the date range, notes the caching behavior, and clarifies the scope limitation. There is no output schema, but the description compensates by enumerating the output fields in concrete detail.

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 lone `days` parameter is fully documented with type, default, minimum, and maximum. The description only restates the 'up to 90 days' aspect and adds no parameter-specific guidance beyond what the schema already provides.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair, 'Get daily Leverage Radar market-level history', and enumerates the exact metrics returned. It clearly differentiates from per-asset detail by stating 'market-level only' and naming the fields that are aggregated.

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 clear context: this is for daily historical Leverage Radar market aggregates, up to 90 days, one row per day. It also states an explicit when-not ('Pro-only per-asset detail excluded — market-level only'), though it does not name a specific sibling alternative for per-asset data.

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