Coin risk context

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds significant behavioral context: it explains the funding nuance for perps vs spot, instructs to relay carry fields exactly, and lists all return fields. No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise (four sentences), front-loaded with the most important information, and every sentence adds value. No wasted words.

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 presence of an output schema and clear annotations, the description fully covers the tool's purpose, usage context, and behavioral caveats. It is complete for an agent to decide when and how to use this 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 coverage is 100% with a description for the 'symbols' parameter that matches the tool description. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline.

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 'bundled risk context' for coins, listing specific fields like price, funding APR, trends, sentiment, and correlation. It distinguishes itself as the best tool for 'should I be worried about X', which differentiates it from siblings like get_coin_sentiment or get_prices.

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 specifies that funding applies only to perpetual positions and advises relaying carry fields exactly. It also positions itself as the best single tool for risk assessment. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools for specific cases.

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