get_market_adl_events

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It explains that ADL events involve force-closing positions to cover shortfalls, giving some behavioral context. However, it does not disclose read-only nature, rate limits, pagination behavior, or data freshness, leaving important behavioral traits unaddressed.

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 extremely concise with two sentences. The first sentence is front-loaded with the core purpose and an explanatory clause, and the second adds a necessary prerequisite. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 (2 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the basic functionality and prerequisite. However, it lacks details about the return format or structure of the events, which would help an agent understand the output. Without an output schema, the description should compensate more.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the domain context (ADL settlement history) but does not add specific parameter details beyond what the schema already provides for 'market_id' and 'limit'.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'auto-deleveraging (ADL) settlement history for one market', with an explanatory clause about what ADL events are. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_adl_history', which may have a different scope, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this specific tool.

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 mentions a prerequisite ('Requires API credentials') and explains the tool's purpose, but it provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it specify any exclusions or best practices. The usage context is implied by the resource description.

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