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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses free vs. unlocked tiers, the requirement for session_token or payment proof, and the meaning of 'No coverage'. This is significant behavioral context beyond basic functionality.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first phrase. Each sentence adds value, and parameter explanations are inline and compact. No fluff 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?

Even without an output schema, the description conveys what the user gets: dossier features, free vs. full versions, and the no-coverage case. It doesn't detail the exact return structure but gives enough for an agent to understand the tool's output and access requirements.

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 compensates by explaining ticker with an example, window_days range, session_token source, and payment as an x402 proof. The 'lang' parameter is omitted, but it is a simple optional string with a default.

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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves a per-ticker digest narrative over a window, listing specific content (section appearances, notes, price path). It distinguishes itself from on-chain scoring tools by emphasizing 'OUR narrative on the token'.

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?

Provides context on when to use (when you need our narrative on a specific token) and explicitly excludes on-chain scoring, hinting at when not to use it. However, it does not name specific alternative sibling tools or give explicit 'use instead' guidance.

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