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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It clearly states the tool is non-predictive ('NOT a forecast'), describes the output labels and drivers, and discloses that BTC trend is best-effort and null when unreachable, never faked. It also includes a disclaimer ('Not advice'). Missing details like rate limits or auth needs, but sufficiently transparent for a read-only market indicator.

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 concise (4-5 lines) and well-structured: a question-answer intro, then bullet-like explanations. Every sentence adds value (purpose, method, tier differentiation, edge case handling, disclaimer). Could be slightly tighter, but overall efficient and easy to parse.

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 reasonably explains the output for both free (label) and premium (drivers list). It covers edge cases (BTC trend null) and practical usage. With only 2 optional parameters, this level of detail is largely sufficient, though a brief note on return format (e.g., string vs object) would improve completeness.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It mentions 'Free = the label; premium = every driver' which hints at a payment parameter, but does not explicitly describe the `payment` or `session_token` parameters, their values, or how they affect behavior. The description fails to add meaning beyond the schema, leaving agents guessing about how to invoke correctly.

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: to determine if the market is risk-on or risk-off (BULLISH/BEARISH/CHOPPY) by reading the tape, not forecasting. It explains the composite of breadth and relative strength over a tracked crypto set, distinguishing free vs premium output. This is specific and differentiates from siblings like get_market_breadth or get_market_summary.

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 explicitly states it is a read of the tape, not a forecast, guiding agents to use it for current regime assessment rather than predictions. It mentions free vs premium tiers, implying payment usage, but does not explicitly list when not to use or alternative tools. However, the context from sibling tools suggests it for quick regime check, not for detailed analysis.

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