futures_ticker_24hr

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns 24hr statistics with price change, volume, high/low. However, it does not mention read-only nature, rate limits, or data freshness. The behavior is adequately clear given the tool's simplicity.

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 a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with key information. It wastes no words, but could be slightly more structured (e.g., listing fields).

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is sufficient. It explains the purpose and the return fields (price change, volume, high/low). It is complete for a basic stats tool.

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 description coverage is 100% (one parameter 'symbol' with description 'Symbol (omit for all symbols)'). The description adds 'for one or all futures symbols', which reinforces the schema but does not add new semantics. 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 the tool provides 24hr ticker stats for futures symbols, including specific fields like price change, volume, high/low. It distinguishes from sibling tools like futures_ticker_price (current price) and futures_klines (historical data).

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 implies usage by stating 'for one or all futures symbols', but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as futures_ticker_price or futures_top_gainers. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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