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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the computed metrics and mentions a payment/cost mechanism via x402, but the phrasing 'Turns raw Price 0.01 via x402 (USDC on Base)' is incomplete and ambiguous—it is unclear whether this is a payment requirement, a pricing note, or a transform instruction. It also does not state read-only nature, auth needs, rate limits, or what happens when the wallet parameter is omitted.

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 definition is short but poorly structured: it uses a chain of colons and ends with a malformed, fragmentary sentence ('Turns raw Price 0.01 via x402 (USDC on Base).'). The missing word disrupts scannability and costs the description credibility.

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 and a large sibling family, the description should clarify what 'movers' means, what universe of assets is covered, whether the result is a list or single value, and how payment via x402 works. It provides neither the return shape nor enough behavioral context to confidently invoke the 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?

The only parameter, wallet, has a 100% schema description that already explains its optional role and free-tier credit behavior. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the schema already does the heavy lifting, matching the high-coverage baseline.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('get live computed signal' over 'on-chain crypto') and lists concrete outputs: 30-period percentile rank, 4-period momentum, and a plain-language trend verdict. However, it never explains what 'movers' means in this context, and the garbled final sentence about 'Price 0.01 via x402' weakens the clarity.

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 guidance on when to choose this tool over any of the many crypto siblings such as processed_crypto_trending, processed_crypto_prices, or processed_crypto_sectors. No conditions, exclusions, or alternative recommendations are given, leaving the agent to guess which signal bundle is appropriate.

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