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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the data source is public ETH/USDT daily candles, and WETH is treated as ETH-equivalent. It does not cover rate limits or freshness, but the annotations carry the safety profile.

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?

Two tight sentences with no wasted words. The primary output is front-loaded, and the WETH equivalence note earns its place by preventing an asset-mismatch mistake.

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 the tool has an output schema, zero parameters, and annotations covering safety, the description is complete enough. It states what data is returned, the source, and the asset equivalence, leaving no material gap for correct invocation.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is no parameter syntax or semantics to explain, and the schema already has 100% description coverage.

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 returns ETH realized volatility and 30-day swing support/resistance from public ETH/USDT daily candles. It is specific about the resource and data source, but it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools or state why an agent would choose it over alternatives.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no exclusions are provided. The agent can infer that the tool is for ETH levels, but the description does not explicitly say when it should be selected versus other market-data tools in the sibling list.

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