Market snapshot

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's added value is the contents inventory, but it says nothing about data freshness/latency, whether values are point-in-time or rolling, failure behavior for unknown symbols, or rate limits — meaningful gaps for a market-data call.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that opens with the value proposition ('one-call brief for a single market') before the field list — no filler. It is dense with domain jargon (funding APR, mark vs index premium) that a newcomer would need to decode, which keeps it from a 5.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of telling the agent what comes back, and it does so field by field. Given a one-parameter read tool, the remaining gaps (freshness, units, empty/error cases) are minor rather than disqualifying.

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?

Only one parameter, and the schema already fully documents it at 100% coverage, including examples and a pointer to strike_list_markets for discovery. The description adds nothing about the symbol parameter (e.g. case sensitivity, normalization, error on invalid symbol), so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific resource ('a single market') and enumerates exactly what is bundled: price, 24h range/change, volume, open interest, funding, mark vs index premium, spread and book depth/imbalance. This is clearly an aggregate snapshot rather than a single-metric call, which implicitly separates it from siblings like strike_get_orderbook and strike_get_funding. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so it is not a 5.

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 phrase 'one-call brief' implies this is the shortcut instead of stitching together strike_get_candles, strike_get_funding and strike_get_orderbook, but that comparison is never stated. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative, so usage must be inferred from the sibling list.

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