getInsurancePool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals key traits: 'No authentication required', 'Isolated pool updates every minute', 'Shared pool updates daily', and 'The insurance fund absorbs losses from liquidations to prevent auto-deleveraging (ADL).' This provides essential behavioral context for the agent.

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 bullet points and clear sections. It front-loads the main purpose. However, it is slightly verbose, including explanatory background on insurance funds and agent hints that could be more concise. It earns its sentences but could trim some redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description adequately indicates return values: 'balances and USD-denominated values'. It covers the single parameter and provides usage context. However, it lacks specifics about the exact structure of the response (e.g., fields like 'balance', 'value'). For a simple query tool, this is nearly complete but could benefit from a brief note on response format.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'coin'. The description compensates by explaining the parameter's effect: 'Returns all insurance coins if coin is omitted.' and provides usage examples ('e.g., USDT, BTC'). This adds significant semantic value beyond the schema.

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's purpose: 'Query Bybit's insurance pool balances and USD-denominated values for various settlement coins.' It specifies what it does (query insurance pool) and the resource (settlement coins). It distinguishes itself from siblings like getAdlAlert by focusing on insurance pool health, not ADL thresholds.

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 explicit usage guidelines: 'Use this endpoint when you need to: - Monitor insurance fund health... - Understand which contracts share a pool... - Check current pool balance...' It also clearly states when not to use it: 'Do not use this endpoint for ADL threshold details — use getAdlAlert instead.' This offers clear context and alternatives.

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