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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, but the description adds real value: no API key needed, every number carries source and timestamp, and implausible numbers are withheld rather than guessed. It also clarifies it places no orders and moves no funds, which is useful reassurance beyond the readOnlyHint.

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 core behavior is front-loaded well, but the tail contains generic boilerplate ('Places no orders, moves no funds', 'Not financial advice') that consumes space without aiding tool selection.

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 single-param read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned, the ordering logic, and data-quality caveats. The main omission is guidance on when to prefer it over adjacent crypto tools.

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?

With one parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents that symbol accepts a ticker, name, or dashboard slug with examples. The description adds nothing about the parameter, 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 and scope: up to five coins related to one coin, ordered by co-mention then category. This is unmistakably distinct from siblings like crypto_dashboard or gem_screener_coin.

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?

The description explains the ranking logic (co-named first, then same-category) and notes 'No key', which implies free/available usage, but it never says when to reach for this over crypto_dashboard, browse_ontology, or crypto_buzz. Usage is implied rather than routed.

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