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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the returned data components, the pivot behavior for tokens younger than N days, and the ability to accept contract addresses and chain. It does not explicitly state read-only, but the query-like nature of the outputs implies it clearly enough.

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 three sentences, each packed with distinct value: the return summary, the usage intent, and the token coverage and edge-case handling. It is front-loaded with the core phrase 'price MOVEMENT' and contains no filler.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description must and does provide full context. It covers scope, use case, parameter meaning, return components, and the pivot behavior. It is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly without additional information.

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 schema already covers 100% of the parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by clarifying that query can be a name/ticker or a contract address, and that chain pairs with the address. It also links the days parameter to the pivot behavior, providing context beyond schema defaults.

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 identifies the tool as providing recent price movement of a crypto token, listing specific outputs such as price path, high/low, net change, and sparkline. It explicitly distinguishes from siblings by stating 'movement OVER TIME, not just current price,' which differentiates it from token_price and similar 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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use for how has X moved / dipped / done over the last N days' and emphasizes movement over time versus current price. It also covers edge cases like listed coins and DEX memecoins, but does not name specific alternative tools or provide explicit exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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