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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses the unusual payment mechanism ($0.01 per call via x402, USDT on X Layer) and the 402 challenge retry behavior. This is essential operational context. Does not detail empty-result behavior, but that's minor.

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?

Organized into clear blocks (purpose, payment, cold-start benefit, pitch comparison) with front-loaded core intent. Each sentence adds value; slightly long but not wasteful.

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 1-param tool without an output schema, it covers the essential purpose, payment/retry details, and differentiation from siblings. The return format is implied as a list of stocks, which is sufficient for invocation.

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%: limit is fully described with default and max. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so 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 verb 'Scan' + resource 'Korean market snapshot' + specific outcome 'return stocks currently at a top (sell), ranked most-top first'. Clearly distinguishes from scan_bottoms (opposite direction) and evaluate_symbol (single symbol) via the cold-start contrast.

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 the best cold-start use case ('you do not need to pick a symbol') and points to the free `pitch` tool for a count-only need. Mentions the payment prerequisite and retry header, which are conditions for successful use.

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