crypto_dislocations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Fetch' implies a read, but it says nothing about whether results are historical vs. live, how events are thresholded, return shape, or pagination/rate limits.

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 front-loaded sentence naming the verb and resource with no filler. It is efficient, though terse enough to leave the behavioral gaps unfilled.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only place to explain what a 'dislocation event' contains and how the date/time slices interact. It leaves that entirely unexplained for a domain-specific analytical 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 description coverage is 100%, so the date, pair, and time parameters are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the token-pair scope but adds no format or default detail beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline 3.

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 ('Fetch') and a specific resource ('cross-venue market dislocation and spread arbitrage events') scoped to a token pair. It is distinguishable from siblings like crypto_spread_candles and crypto_impact_simulation, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with them.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus crypto_spread_candles or dex_price_summary, and no stated preconditions or exclusions. Usage is only inferable from the name and the word 'events'.

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