True Markets Market Data

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=False, fully covering the safety profile. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotations, merely repeating the read nature.

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 a single, concise sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose with no unnecessary words 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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the lack of output schema, and rich annotations, the description is adequate but could be improved by hinting at the level of detail returned or differentiating from get_asset_summary more explicitly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters. The description only restates the parameters without adding new meaning or constraints, earning the baseline score.

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's purpose using a specific verb ('Get details') and resource ('a specific token by chain and contract address'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like get_asset_summary and get_market_cap, which have different scopes.

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it indicate prerequisites or when not to use it.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description only adds context about the content being AI-generated and including news/sentiment. It does not contradict annotations and adds modest value.

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 a single clear sentence of 12 words, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no unnecessary content. Every word earns its place.

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?

The description lacks details about the output format or structure, which is problematic since there is no output schema. It mentions 'news analysis and sentiment' but not how they are represented, leaving the agent to infer the response shape.

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 100% with a clear explanation of the symbol parameter. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides ('Asset symbol (e.g., BTC, ETH, SOL)'), so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'daily AI-generated summary for a specific asset including news analysis and sentiment', clearly distinguishing it from siblings like get_asset (basic info) and get_asset_summary_history (historical summaries).

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 implies usage for retrieving a daily summary but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like get_asset_summary_history or get_market_summary, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. Description adds the 'historical daily summaries' aspect, which is useful but not extensive. No contradiction.

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?

Single sentence, no wasted words. Could be slightly more structured but remains concise.

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?

Description is adequate for a simple tool with 2 parameters and strong annotations. However, it lacks details on the content of summaries (e.g., open/close/volume) or date range, given no output schema.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both 'limit' and 'symbol'. Description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema.

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 'Get historical daily summaries for a specific asset,' specifying verb, resource, and scope. Distinguishes from siblings like 'get_asset_summary' (current) and 'get_price_history' (price-only).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Usage is implied by the description, but no when-not or comparative advice is provided.

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

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

The annotations already establish that this is a safe, idempotent read, so the description's main added value is the failure mode: requesting candles for a derived or snapshot source returns 400. That is real behavioral context an agent would not get from the annotations. It does not say anything about result limits or how many candles come back.

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 front-loaded with purpose and return shape, then adds constraints and a doc pointer in short paragraphs. The external documentation references are the only mild bloat; nothing else is wasted.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description explains the return shape (OHLC buckets) and the main failure condition. The only gap is the absence of any detail about result size or pagination, which an agent might need before calling.

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 coverage is 100%, and each parameter already has a description, so the schema does most of the work. The description defers the `window` and `resolution` formats to an external doc section rather than explaining them inline. This sits at the baseline for a fully documented schema.

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 ('Get OHLC candles for a symbol') and spells out the return shape: open/high/low/close buckets sampled at a resolution, plus an asset-class caveat. It distinguishes the tool from single-close siblings by saying it is for cases that 'need the intra-bucket range rather than a single close.'

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?

It gives concrete use cases (candlestick charts, volatility measures) and an explicit precondition: sources that are derived or snapshot-based return 400, so only tick-storing assets qualify. It does not name a specific sibling tool as an alternative, which keeps it below a 5.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description contributes nothing beyond that: no currency/unit for the returned figure, no data freshness or caching behavior, and no indication of behavior for unknown symbols.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler and no repetition of annotation or schema content. Nothing in it is wasted.

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, fully annotated single-parameter read with no output schema, the description is essentially sufficient. The minor gap is that a market-cap figure's currency/unit and freshness are never stated, which an agent may need to interpret the result.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including examples (BTC, ETH, SOL), so the schema does the work. The description only restates "by symbol" and adds no format or case-sensitivity detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Get the market capitalization") scoped to "a specific asset by symbol," which distinguishes it reasonably from list_market_caps. It does not explicitly name get_market_cap_history or list_market_caps as alternatives, so sibling differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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?

Usage is implied by "for a specific asset by symbol" — a single-asset lookup rather than a bulk or historical query — but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of the nearby get_market_cap_history or list_market_caps tools. An agent must infer the routing from the tool name.

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

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), but the description adds substantial behavioral context: each point is the provider-reported figure at that timestamp, snapshots follow the provider's coarse ingest cadence so resolution below 1h cannot be filled, and missing buckets are absent rather than zero. These details are critical for correct interpretation and go well beyond the annotations.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with purpose, followed by data semantics and a documentation reference. It is appropriately sized for a tool with non-trivial data behavior, though the first two sentences are slightly redundant in restating the purpose.

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 moderate complexity, 100% schema coverage, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description covers purpose, data cadence, gap behavior, and resolution constraints. It stops short of describing the return structure (e.g., array of timestamp/value points) in explicit terms, but the phrase 'Each point is the figure...' gives enough to infer the response shape.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it explains why `resolution` must be at least `1h` (provider ingest cadence) and clarifies that absent buckets are not zero. It does not detail the exact window/resolution format, instead referring to external documentation.

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: 'Get reported market-cap history' and 'Returns an asset's reported market capitalisation in USD over a configurable lookback window, sampled at a configurable resolution.' This clearly distinguishes it from current-snapshot siblings like get_market_cap by emphasizing historical, lookback-windowed data.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and description—agents can infer this is for historical market cap rather than current values—but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings such as get_market_cap or get_market_summary. The resolution constraint ('at least 1h') is a parameter guideline, not a when-to-use-this-vs-alternative statement.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds context that the summary is AI-generated, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond the annotations.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the main action ('Get a market digest') and provides concise details.

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 no parameters, annotations covering safety, and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It explains the purpose and content of the summary, though it could mention the output format.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per the guidelines, a baseline of 4 is appropriate since no parameter information is needed.

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 a market digest with specific content (key bullets, trending assets, sentiment analysis, sources) and is AI-generated. It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_market_cap or get_price_history.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No explicit context for when-not-to-use or which sibling to choose instead.

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

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description correctly focuses on data semantics instead: both series come from the same venue snapshot row, giving a temporal-consistency guarantee a caller would otherwise not know. It also pins down units precisely (hourly decimal fraction for funding, base-asset coin count for OI, not USD notional), which prevents a common misinterpretation.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then units, then a doc pointer — a sensible order with little waste. Minor redundancy in 'configurable lookback window, sampled at a configurable resolution,' which restates the schema's window and resolution parameters.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values and does so for units and cross-series consistency. It stops short of describing the row shape (e.g. whether each sample carries a timestamp), leaving a small gap for a time-series tool.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents symbol, asset_id exclusivity, and the resolution constraint, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds only a pointer to external docs for window/resolution formats rather than restating or enriching parameter semantics itself.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Get perp funding rate and open interest history,' naming the exact two series returned. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_price_history, get_volume_history, and get_candles, which cover different metrics.

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?

Usage is only implied by the resource itself (derivatives metrics rather than spot prices); there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_candles or get_price_history. The symbol/asset_id mutual exclusivity is a calling constraint, not alternative-tool guidance, and is already documented in the schema.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description's job is to add the semantics that matter: it returns the most recent price at or before the timestamp, not an exact-match lookup — a genuinely important behavioral trait for the caller. It omits what happens when no prior price exists (error vs null) and says nothing about rate limits, but for a read-only lookup this is solid added context.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior before the use cases. The final sentence's three examples are slightly padded but each is concrete and short; nothing is wasted outright.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should carry return shape — 'Returns the last known price' hints at a scalar but doesn't say whether the response includes the actual matched timestamp or asset metadata. The no-data case (timestamp earlier than any known price) is also unaddressed, leaving real gaps for a 4-parameter tool.

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 100%, including the symbol/asset_id mutual exclusivity and the timestamp semantics, so the schema already carries the load and baseline 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g. asset_class resolution, timezone/precision caveats) beyond restating the timestamp behavior.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get price') plus the crucial resolution semantics ('last known price at or before the given timestamp'). It implicitly distinguishes itself from range/history siblings ('a point in time'), but never names get_price_history or get_price_range, so differentiation is left to inference.

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?

'Use this to value a position, settle a trade, or anchor a calculation to a specific moment in time' gives concrete usage contexts that map to the point-in-time semantics. It stops short of exclusions — no guidance on when to prefer get_price_history or get_price_range instead.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds two useful non-annotation facts: no authentication is required and the response is timestamped price points. It still says nothing about series size, pagination, rate limits, sort order, or units/quote currency, which matter for a time-series read.

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?

Three short sentences, all earning their place, with the primary purpose front-loaded before the return shape and the auth note. No filler or redundancy.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should carry more of the return-value burden; 'timestamped price points' is a start but omits ordering, point count limits, and units. Against a dense sibling set the lack of routing guidance leaves a real gap.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description only reinforces that multiple tokens are accepted; it adds no format or interaction detail (e.g. resolution vs window interplay) beyond the schema's own text.

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?

Clear verb+resource ('Get historical price data for one or more tokens') and it names the return shape ('timestamped price points'). However, it never distinguishes itself from near-neighbours in the sibling set such as get_price_range, get_price_at_time, get_candles, or get_perp_market_history, all of which sound like the same job.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus alternatives, even though the sibling list contains at least four plausible substitutes (get_price_range, get_price_at_time, get_candles, get_price_indicators). The only usage constraint present (symbols vs asset_ids mutual exclusion) lives in the schema, not the description.

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

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: explains the internal window widening and trimming so the first point is converged, that the window is measured back from the latest point so lagging feeds still return full windows, and which conditions return 400. Also proactively states VWAP is not offered and why.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then organized by indicator families. It is lengthy, but nearly every sentence carries non-obvious constraints (atr OHLC requirement, resolution bucket bound, VWAP exclusion) rather than restating schema.

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?

With 11 parameters, no output schema and mutation-free annotations, the description compensates fully by explaining the `lines` return structure keyed by line name for each indicator family and the warm-up/trimming behavior. An agent could call this correctly from the description alone.

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 coverage is 91%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds real meaning by mapping parameters to indicators – which use `period` vs fixed spans, the 400-bucket bound on `resolution`, and the sma/ema/rsi vs bollinger/atr vs macd `period` defaults. The empty `asset_class` schema description is the main gap.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb and resource ('Get a technical indicator series') and clarifies it is computed from close prices, distinguishing it from raw-price siblings like get_candles or get_price_history. It could more explicitly name the sibling boundary, but the resource is unmistakably different.

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?

Rich conditional guidance: atr requires tick-storing assets and returns 400 otherwise, momentum measures reject `period` and need coarse enough `resolution` to fit in 400 buckets, trending_ratio needs a CoinGecko-mapped asset and `resolution` of at least 1h. It lacks an explicit 'use X instead' routing sentence against siblings, 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.

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered and the bar is lower. Beyond that the description usefully discloses the response contents (extremes plus their timestamps), but says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or behavior when no data exists in the window.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the following sentences add return shape, use cases, and a doc pointer rather than padding. Slightly longer than strictly necessary but every sentence carries information.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming what comes back (min, max, per-extreme timestamps), so an agent can call it without guessing the payload. The remaining gap is doc-driven behavior around edge cases and the window grammar, which is deferred to an external section.

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 coverage is already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by pointing to the Time Window & Resolution documentation section for the `window` format, which the schema's terse example list does not explain. It does not restate the symbol/asset_id mutual exclusion, but that is fully documented in the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get min/max price over a window') and spells out exactly what is returned: minimum, maximum, and the timestamps of each extreme. That return shape implicitly separates it from series-returning siblings like get_price_history and point-value siblings like get_price_at_time, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

'Useful for surfacing 24h highs/lows or computing period-over-period statistics' gives example use cases, so usage is implied rather than stated outright. It never says when to prefer this over get_price_history or get_price_at_time, which matters with 17 siblings in this family.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so safety is covered; the description adds nothing on top. It does not define 'unusual' (threshold, lookback window, whether price and volume are combined), nor the default ordering when sort is omitted, nor whether results are a live snapshot.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though the terseness edges toward under-specification rather than optimal density.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should carry the burden of explaining what an asset record contains and how results are ranked. It leaves the central screening criteria and the return shape undefined, which is a substantial gap for an open-world screener tool.

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 100%, so both parameters (sort, limit) are already documented in the schema and the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no semantics about how sorting interacts with the 'surge' ranking, which would have been genuinely useful.

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?

States a specific verb ('get') and a well-defined resource class: assets screened for unusual recent price or volume moves. The idea of a screener is clear, but the description never contrasts it with the close sibling get_trending_assets, so an agent cannot tell which screening concept it wants without outside knowledge.

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 prerequisites, and no mention of the obvious alternative get_trending_assets (or get_price_indicators / get_volume_history) for related questions. The agent must infer selection criteria entirely from the name.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the ranking metric (trading volume), which is useful behavioral context, but it omits the time window defining 'trending', the default result count, and whether results are paginated.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the resource and ranking basis come first. Nothing is wasted, though the brevity is also the source of the remaining gaps.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations covering scope, the description should say what the trending window is and what the default limit/sort produce. Neither is present, so an agent cannot predict the shape or size of the response.

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 100%, so both parameters are documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about sort semantics or a sensible default limit, and in fact the schema's own sort wording ('ascending instead of descending') is the only guidance available.

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?

States a specific verb and resource plus the ranking dimension ('assets trending by trading volume'), which is more than a restatement of the name. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from siblings like get_surging_assets or list_assets, which plausibly return similar data.

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 indication of when to use this versus get_surging_assets, list_assets, or get_volume_history. The agent must guess which of several asset-listing tools returns trending data.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered; the description instead contributes non-obvious semantics — that each point is a rolling 24h figure and that adjacent points overlap by nearly a full day, which prevents double-counting. It stops short of disclosing limits such as maximum point count, pagination, or behavior for unknown symbols.

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 definition is front-loaded in the first sentence, with the interpretation caveat and doc pointer following in logical order. It is slightly long for a four-parameter read tool and the docs anchor is only marginally useful, but no sentence is 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values and does so — points are provider-reported rolling 24h USD figures at each timestamp. What remains unstated are edge cases such as empty series, maximum resolution span, or error behavior for invalid windows, which matters for an open-world read tool.

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 100%, so all four parameters, including the symbol/asset_id mutual exclusivity and the resolution-vs-window constraint, are already documented. The description adds no per-parameter meaning beyond a pointer to an external docs section for window/resolution formatting, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get reported 24h volume history') plus the exact unit and configurability ('reported 24h volume in USD over a configurable lookback window, sampled at a configurable resolution'). Crucially it separates itself from the bucket-volume sibling: 'not the volume traded inside the bucket' tells an agent how this differs from get_candles.

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 definition draws a sharp semantic line between provider-reported rolling volume and per-bucket traded volume, which is effectively the criterion for choosing this tool over get_candles. However, it never names the alternative tool nor states when not to use this one; the routing is inferable rather than explicit.

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

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive nature. The description adds behavioral context by specifying that the tool returns a list of all tradable tokens and their key attributes, which is not in annotations.

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 with two short, informative sentences that directly state the tool's action and output, with no wasted words.

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 no output schema, the description adequately enumerates return fields. It could benefit from mentioning that the chain filter is optional and default behavior, but overall covers the essential context.

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 coverage is 100% with a clear parameter description for 'chain'. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score applies.

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 it lists all available tradable tokens and specifies the returned fields (symbol, name, chain, address, decimals), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_asset which retrieves a single asset.

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 implies usage when a full list of tradable tokens is needed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_asset or list_market_caps.

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

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

The annotations already state readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety and idempotency profile is covered. The description adds the descending market-cap ordering but does not mention pagination behavior, data freshness, or whether results are a current snapshot.

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?

It is a single efficient sentence with no wasted words, and the key ordering constraint is front-loaded. It gives the agent the essential calling context immediately.

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-only listing tool with rich annotations and a fully documented schema, the description is nearly complete. The main minor gap is that it does not clarify whether this covers all asset classes or how it relates to get_market_cap, but no output schema exists and the simple behavior is largely conveyed.

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 100%, and the single limit parameter is fully documented in the schema with default and maximum values. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('List'), resource ('assets'), and ordering ('ranked by market capitalization in descending order'), which is more informative than a bare list tool. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as list_assets or get_market_cap, so it stops short of a 5.

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 implies usage for retrieving a ranked market-cap listing, but it never states when to choose this over list_assets or get_market_cap. There are no exclusions or alternative-selection guidance, so usage is only implied.

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