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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: data refreshes on a ~60s tick, symbols can collide across listings, and no authentication is needed. This goes well beyond the structured 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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes only high-value details: workflow, field list, refresh cadence, and a critical symbol-collision warning. It is substantive but every sentence earns its place.

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 is complete for a discovery tool: it explains what data is returned, how fresh it is, how to chain it to downstream tools, and what caveats to watch for. Combined with annotations and full schema coverage, no important behavioral gap remains.

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% and both parameters (limit, direction) already have clear descriptions in the schema. The description adds general context like 'top gainers or top losers' and row fields, but does not materially enhance the meaning of the specific parameters beyond the 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 states a specific verb+resource combination: a 'free public scan' of CoinRithm's tracked crypto universe for top 24h movers. It clearly distinguishes this as a discovery tool versus deep-analysis siblings like get_candles and get_market_context.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: use this to discover candidates beyond your watchlist, then deep-analyze with get_candles and get_market_context before trade decisions. It also gives a concrete workflow warning—pass coinId directly rather than re-resolving from symbol—and notes no API key is required.

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