get_market_risk_params

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose two real traits: the deprecation status and that the endpoint is public with no credentials needed. It stops short of noting whether the response is cached or rate limited, but for a simple public getter the disclosure is solid.

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?

Deprecation warning is front-loaded, followed by a tight single sentence covering purpose, scope, and data returned. Zero filler.

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?

For a one-parameter, no-output-schema read tool, the description supplies the purpose, the returned fields, the data source, and the auth posture, which is enough to call it correctly. A note on response shape or error behavior would be the only remaining gap.

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 single parameter already documented as a market id with an example, so the schema does the work. The description adds only the notion of 'one market' and no format or identifier-syntax detail beyond the schema's example.

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 verb and resource (get one market's risk parameters), enumerates what is returned (margin requirements, maximum leverage), and names the registry as source. It also names the successor tool fetch_market_risk_params, which cleanly separates it from that sibling.

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?

Explicitly flags the tool as deprecated and directs the agent to use `fetch_market_risk_params` instead. The when-not-to-use case and the alternative are both stated, leaving nothing to inference.

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