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

The description discloses the $0.01 cost, X Layer/USDT payment mechanism, 402 retry requirement with PAYMENT-SIGNATURE header, and that no account/signup is needed. It also states the ranking behavior. These are non-obvious side effects and prerequisites the agent must know, though it does not describe response shape or potential failure modes.

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 purpose, then payment/auth requirements, then cold-start guidance. The text is a bit dense with capitalized labels like PAY and BEST COLD START, and 'No account, no signup' is slightly redundant, but every section carries operational value.

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?

Covers the essential invocation context: universe size (28 futures), output ranking order, cost, authentication flow, and relationship to `pitch`. It does not specify the exact output schema or define what 'bottom' means objectively, but the information provided is sufficient for a first call.

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 already documents `limit` with default and max, so baseline is 3. The description adds context by explaining that the limit applies to a ranked universe of 28 futures and that no symbol parameter is needed, enriching the agent's understanding of what `limit` caps.

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?

First sentence states a specific action: scan the commodity complex snapshot and return commodities ranked most-bottom first. It also distinguishes itself from `pitch`, which reports counts, and the name contrasts with siblings like `scan_tops`.

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?

Explicitly frames this as the cold-start tool: no symbol needs to be picked. It tells the agent when to prefer `pitch` instead (for counts) and covers the 402/payment-signature retry flow. It does not explicitly list when not to use the tool, but the alternative and use context are clear.

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