Get Perps tickers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. Beyond that, the description adds useful composition detail — that 24h statistics are merged in and that best bid/offer is optional. It does not disclose whether results are a point-in-time snapshot, how stale the data may be, or how multi-instrument responses are ordered, which matters for a market-data tool.

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?

A single compact sentence with no filler, and the core payload is front-loaded. The tradeoff is that the fragment lacks a leading clause establishing the tool's action, so brevity comes at some cost to scannability.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover safety. What remains missing for a multi-instrument market-data tool is any statement of scope (all instruments by default), snapshot semantics, and routing versus the many overlapping perps siblings — enough gaps to keep this at minimum-viable.

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%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema; that sets the baseline at 3. The description only lightly echoes include_bbo ("optionally the best bid and offer") and include_statistics ("merged with 24h statistics") and says nothing about instrument_id or what a null value yields beyond what the schema states.

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 enumerates the data returned (mark/index/last/mid prices, open interest, funding rate, next funding time, 24h stats, optional BBO) but never states a verb or scope, so it reads as a payload manifest rather than a statement of what the tool does. It does not distinguish this from siblings such as get_perps_index, get_perps_exchange_stats, or get_market, which plausibly overlap in returned fields.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no conditions or prerequisites, and no mention of any alternative tool. The agent must infer from sibling names alone whether to reach for get_perps_tickers versus get_perps_index or get_perps_exchange_stats.

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