leverage_radar

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It explains the public nature, the 5-minute caching, that pro-only fields are stripped, and exactly what data is included. It does not explicitly say read-only or mention rate limits, but for a snapshot-fetch tool the disclosed behavior is strong.

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 the core action and resource, and it organizes output details clearly. There is mild redundancy between the opening summary and the later 'Returns...' sentence, but the extra detail about score definitions, market summary components, and pro-only exclusions 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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return values, and it does so thoroughly: score scales, asset categories, market summary contents, top lists, omitted pro-only fields, cache behavior, and parameter options. For a single-optional-parameter read-only snapshot tool, nothing essential for invoking and interpreting it 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?

The schema already covers the single parameter completely with enum values, defaults, and descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description restates 'Supports ?window=1h|4h|12h (default 4h)' and provides no additional semantic meaning 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get current Leverage Radar snapshot', and lists concrete contents (pressure scores, setup scores, top long/short setups, market summary). It is clear what the tool returns, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like leverage_history or leverage_picks_summary, so it misses full sibling differentiation.

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?

The description establishes that this is a current, public real-time snapshot with a 5-minute cache, and it documents the supported window parameter. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over related history or summary siblings, leaving the 'when not to use' guidance implied rather than explicit.

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