Live Risk Overview

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety/behavior is well covered. The description adds useful context about what data the snapshot aggregates and includes, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as time windows, sampling, or any caveats about the returned data.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by practical example questions and a compact list of return dimensions. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the tool has no output schema, the description compensates by listing the key return categories clearly. It is sufficient for a single-optional-parameter, read-only overview tool. It could be slightly more complete by clarifying time windows or distinguishing itself from live_coin_risk_snapshot, but overall the agent has enough context to invoke it correctly.

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?

The schema covers the single optional parameter useToonFormat with a description and default, so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description does not mention this parameter, but the schema already documents it fully. No additional parameter semantics are needed.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get the exchange-wide market risk snapshot.' It clearly states the scope (exchange-wide) and enumerates concrete outputs (total open interest, leverage, crowding concentration, near-liquidation exposure, 7-day liquidation totals, top fragile coins). This distinguishes it from per-coin sibling tools like live_coin_risk_snapshot.

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 gives explicit use-case examples: 'Best for questions like "what looks fragile right now?" or "which coins are most crowded?"' This provides clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool versus sibling tools like live_coin_risk_snapshot or live_liquidation_heatmap.

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