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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, lowering the burden. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those: the response is organized 'in causal order', the output is guaranteed to avoid a second call, view variants alter what is returned, and crowding is gated to Pro users. No contradiction with 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?

Two dense sentences with the core promise front-loaded ('one-call answer for ONE coin, in causal order') before the content list and view lanes. Every clause earns its place, and the view enumeration is necessary because the schema explicitly defers to the description for lane meanings.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The description covers the data categories, the single-call behavior, all view variants with their contents, and the Pro restriction. The only minor gap is not naming sibling alternatives for routing, but for a well-scoped read-only analysis tool this is near-complete.

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 genuinely expands on the view parameter: it defines what quick (price, funding, OI only), funding (rate per exchange), and crowding (0-100, Pro) each return, while the schema merely says 'Which lane; see the description.' This makes the description the canonical source for view semantics 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/resource: 'one-call answer for ONE coin' that answers 'why is X moving', enumerating exact content (price, 24h move, news read, whale flow, forced closes, funding, open interest). The single-coin causal framing distinguishes it from market-wide siblings like market_screener, market_now, and watchlist_brief without them being named.

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?

Gives clear context: use this when the question is 'why is X moving' for one coin and you want it without a second call. Scope is explicit with 'ONE coin', implying it is not for portfolio scans or multi-coin comparisons, but no alternative tool is named and there is no when-not-to-use exclusion.

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