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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses output categories, access tiers, timeframes, universe constraints, and a disclaimer. This is solid transparency for a read-oriented data tool, though it does not detail exact return structure or edge cases.

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 and efficient, using em-dashes and semicolons to pack information into a compact paragraph. Every clause contributes value, though a brief bulleted list could improve readability.

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 tool with no output schema, the description is quite complete: it defines the two outcome types, access tiers, resolutions, universe, and disclaimer. An agent can reasonably select and invoke the tool, though exact output formatting remains unspecified.

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%, and the description only implicitly addresses the 'payment' parameter via the free/premium distinction. It does not explain 'session_token' or any other parameter behaviors. The description partially compensates for the lack of schema detail but leaves parameter semantics incomplete.

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 defines the tool's purpose: identifying coins where attention and price diverge ('coiled' and 'quiet_mover'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on the fusion of attention and price, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools.

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?

It provides contextual usage guidance: free vs. premium output, daily and 1-hour resolutions, crypto-only universe, and the requirement that tickers have both attention and price. It does not explicitly exclude other tools or compare with alternatives, but the context is sufficient for most use cases.

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