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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses free vs. paid behavior, authentication requirements, and the meaning of 'No coverage'. It clarifies the output is narrative, not on-chain scoring. While it lacks rate limits or idempotency, the disclosure is strong for an unannotated tool.

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 dense but efficient, front-loading the main purpose. It uses about four sentences with no wasted words. Formatting is slightly informal with line breaks but remains readable.

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 and 0% parameter descriptions, the description provides good context: free vs. paid, parameter constraints, authentication flow, and possible output (coverage headline vs. full timeline). It lacks explicit return structure but is sufficient for a tool of this complexity.

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 compensate. It explains ticker (e.g., HYPE), window_days (1..90), session_token, and payment in context. Lang is not explained, but four of five parameters are covered with meaningful guidance, adding 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 retrieves what the digest said about a ticker over a window, including section appearances, notes, and price path. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying 'OUR narrative on the token (not on-chain scoring)' and mentions free vs. paid access, making it very clear.

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 explains parameter usage (ticker, window_days) and conditions for full access (session_token or payment). It indicates free returns a coverage headline and when 'No coverage' applies. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare directly with alternatives.

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