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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does cover two things well beyond structured data: the call cost ($0.007) and the exact label output set (STRONG_BUY/BUY/NEUTRAL/SELL/STRONG_SELL). It omits whether scoring is real-time vs cached, latency, or how ties/threshold boundaries are handled for a paid call.

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?

Front-loaded with price and the core resource, then inputs, then output scale and labels — an efficient ordering for an agent skimming. The only waste is mild duplication between listing 'BTC, ETH, SOL, AVAX' and the trailing '?pair=BTC' example, which restates the enum already given.

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?

For a one-parameter scoring tool with no output schema, the description supplies what matters: the numeric range, the categorical return values, the constituent signals, the covered assets, and the cost. Missing only operational details (freshness, latency, failure behavior on unsupported pairs), which are secondary here.

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% with an enum of four pairs and a documented BTC default, so the schema already fully specifies the parameter. The description merely repeats the same allowed values and appends '?pair=BTC', adding no syntax, casing, or behavioral meaning beyond the schema — the baseline 3 applies.

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 resource and scope: a composite 0-100 trading score covering exactly BTC, ETH, SOL, AVAX, built from named inputs (trend, volume, Bollinger Bands, Hyperliquid funding, whale positioning). This clearly distinguishes it in kind from single-indicator siblings such as bb_analysis or funding_rate_hl, though it never names those siblings to route between 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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the word 'Synthesizes' plus the enumeration of inputs signals this is the aggregated multi-signal view rather than a raw single-indicator feed. There is no explicit 'use this when…' condition and no exclusion telling the agent when a narrower sibling is preferable.

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