futures_market_overview

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return format (Dict with total_available count and list of contracts with OHLCV + % change), which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, or what happens with invalid category values. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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 well-structured with clear sections for args and returns. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. The parameter list is concise and each line earns its place. Minor deduction for not being even more compact, but overall efficient.

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 read-only overview tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential information: what it returns, how to filter, and the parameter semantics. It doesn't explain edge cases (e.g., what happens with no matching contracts) or provide examples, but for a simple list tool this is adequate. The absence of an output schema means the return format description is valuable and present.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: it explains each parameter's meaning (category values, exchanges options, limit default, volume_min filter). This adds significant value beyond the bare schema, which only shows types and defaults. The description effectively documents all four parameters.

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 returns top futures contracts sorted by trading volume, with a specific resource (futures contracts) and verb (list/sort). It distinguishes itself from siblings like futures_top_movers and futures_category_snapshot by focusing on volume-sorted overview, though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives.

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 provides parameter guidance (category, exchanges, limit, volume_min) and implies usage for market overview, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like futures_top_movers or futures_category_snapshot. The context is clear but exclusions are not stated.

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