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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses critical behavioral traits: timeframe clamping by tier, free vs paid access, and the exact auth mechanisms (session_token from verify_wallet_ownership or x402 payment proof). This goes beyond minimal and gives the agent a comprehensive understanding of constraints and requirements.

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 and information-dense, using a compact bullet-like structure. Every sentence earns its place: the first line states the core purpose, the second details all filters and tier behavior, and the third explains access levels. No filler or redundant content.

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 5 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers all necessary selection and invocation aspects: what the tool does, filter options, tier constraints, and access requirements. It is complete enough for an agent to decide when and how to call it correctly.

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 0%, so the description is the sole source for parameter meaning. It explicitly enumerates valid values for timeframe, category, and lang, and clarifies the purpose of session_token and payment. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions and provides actionable guidance.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Market recap — filterable by timeframe and category.' This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_market_breadth or get_trending, which target different metrics. The title also includes the market summary scope, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool: for a market recap with timeframe and category filters. It also explains tier-based limitations (free≤24h, connected≤7d) and how to unlock the full recap via session_token or payment. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, hence not a 5.

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