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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavior: plausibility-checked numbers are withheld rather than guessed, every value carries source and time, and it explicitly states no orders are placed and no funds move.

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 resource and its contents, but the middle is an undifferentiated run-on list of a dozen-plus fields. The operationally important clauses (building status, withheld numbers, no orders) are buried at the tail and would be better surfaced earlier.

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 usefully enumerates the return payload and the source/time provenance rule, which is exactly what an agent needs. It is complete enough to call correctly; only sibling differentiation 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 schema already documents the sole symbol parameter (ticker, name, or dashboard slug with examples). The description adds only the edge-case that an unbuilt coin is still accepted, which is marginal semantics beyond the schema; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource framing ('One coin's dashboard: price, 24h/7d/30d change, market cap...') that tells an agent exactly which coin it is fetching and what comes back. The enumerated contents clearly separate this from siblings like crypto_dashboard_search (discovery) and nightly field tools like crypto_animal_spirits.

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 one concrete usage rule - a not-yet-built coin begins building and returns status=building, so call again in a minute - which is genuinely useful. However, it never states when to prefer this over crypto_dashboard_search or the other per-coin tools, leaving tool selection to inference.

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