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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It adds helpful context: free vs premium data tiers (affecting output), daily resolution, and a clear note that it's relative-strength rotation, not market-cap dominance. It doesn't state rate limits or explicitly say it's read-only, but the 'get' verb implies a safe query.

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 extremely concise, front-loaded with the core question, and every clause adds necessary information (method, resolution, tier differences, definitional clarification). No filler or repetition.

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 simple read tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, methodology, tier restrictions, and resolution. The only gaps are the unexplained session_token and lack of explicit output format, but the free/premium breakdown implies the return structure sufficiently.

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 description gives meaning to the 'payment' parameter by explaining free vs premium outputs, which is useful given 0% schema coverage. However, 'session_token' is left completely unexplained, leaving a gap in parameter understanding.

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 immediately states the tool's purpose with a clear question, specifies the exact metric (7d relative strength vs BTC), and explicitly disambiguates from market-cap dominance. This makes it distinct from sibling tools like get_market_breadth or get_market_regime.

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 use case is implied: if you want to know whether money is rotating into alts or BTC, use this tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, so the agent must infer selection among sibling tools.

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