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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds genuinely new behavior: no API key, no orders, no fund movement, plausibility-checked numbers are withheld rather than guessed, and every number carries source and time. This is substantive context beyond the structured fields.

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 with the core measurement before the disclaimers, and each clause is information-dense. It is on the long side, with defensive statements ('No key', 'Places no orders', 'Not financial advice') that could be trimmed, but none are misleading filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does it well, spelling out both meter scales, the emotion share breakdown, the bullish/bearish split, and the 30-day window. Nothing an agent needs to call or interpret the tool is missing.

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 the single 'symbol' parameter is documented in the schema as accepting ticker/name/slug. The description adds nothing about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides, so the 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 a specific resource (the Animal Spirits meter for one coin) and precisely what it measures: belief-network strength on a 0-100 scale and crowd emotion from -100 to +100 over 30 days. An agent can distinguish this from price-oriented siblings like get_prices or gem_screener_coin without opening the schema.

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?

Clear about what the tool is for ('crowd mood, not a price forecast') and states the data-availability rule (status=not_enough_data under 5 people or 15 messages). It does not name an explicit alternative sibling to use instead, so it stops short of a 5.

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