Live Long/Short Ratio

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

Annotations already declare this tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful functional context about global vs. per-coin behavior, but it does not disclose response shape, data freshness, or any other behavioral constraints beyond what the schema and annotations already imply.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and wastes no words. The conditional behavior is stated clearly and compactly.

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?

This is a low-complexity read-only data tool with three optional parameters and no output schema. The description covers the main invocation modes and key optional behavior. It does not describe the return value structure, but for a simple ratio query this is not a critical 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the coin conditional behavior and the optional historical window, but adds little beyond the schema: it does not explain useToonFormat or any parameter formatting details beyond what is already documented.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('long/short ratio data'), and immediately clarifies the two main scopes: global vs. per-coin. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools, most of which concern other market or trader metrics.

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 clear conditional usage guidance: omit coin for global ratio, provide coin for a specific pair, and optionally request historical data. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide when to call it.

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