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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It fully discloses that the tool is snapshot-based, explains grading thresholds (strong_buy >= +80, etc.), states the score range and sign conventions, mentions the per-timeframe breakdown in the response, and details the pay-per-call mechanism (x402, USDT, retry with PAYMENT-SIGNATURE header, no account). This is exceptionally thorough.

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?

Although the description is long, every sentence delivers essential information: purpose, accepted inputs, grading logic, snapshot source, payment, retry, and differentiation from pitch. There is no redundancy or filler; the density is high and the structure flows logically from capability to grading to operational 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?

The description includes everything an agent needs to correctly invoke the tool: accepted symbol formats, the grading logic, the payment requirement and how to handle the 402 challenge, what the response contains (score, zone, timeframe breakdown), and its relationship to the free pitch tool. No critical information is missing for a remote, paid API 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?

The single parameter 'symbol' has a schema description that already includes examples, and the tool description adds even more context (accepted forms, breadth of pairs). With 100% schema coverage and the description expanding on it, an agent knows exactly what to pass and what is acceptable.

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 bottom/top verdict for one currency pair, defines the covered universe (48 pairs, 24 vs USD and 24 vs KRW), lists accepted input forms (EUR, EURUSD, EURUSD=X), and specifies output (zone and score). This unambiguously distinguishes it from siblings, especially the 'pitch' tool, which is explicitly mentioned as a limited alternative.

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 explicitly contrasts with the 'pitch' tool: 'The free pitch tool shows a live verdict for this market's showcase symbol only — this tool answers ANY symbol in the covered universe.' This gives a clear when-to-use condition. It also explains payment flow, retry logic, and notes it is informational only, covering prerequisites and alternatives.

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