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

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: auth requires a Dev/Pro/Enterprise key in the Authorization header, no key yields DP401_API_KEY_REQUIRED with nothing sent upstream, and a free key yields 403. It also documents parameter refusal across indicators and smoothing warm-up behavior.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and nearly every clause carries information (auth, fallback, output fields, param rules). It is a single dense block that could be broken into segments, and the interpretation guidance is somewhat peripheral, but the length is largely justified for a 14-parameter, 5-indicator tool.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (14 params, 5 indicator modes, auth gating), the description covers everything an agent needs: required inputs, per-indicator output fields, data ordering, error fallbacks, and smoothing caveats. An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is a bonus rather than a requirement.

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 adds real meaning: it maps each parameter to the indicator it applies to, warns that a parameter belonging to another indicator is refused, and repeats critical defaults. Enum values and formats live in the schema, but the cross-parameter rules and interpretation notes go beyond it.

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 and resource ('Get a technical indicator (RSI, EMA, MACD, Bollinger Bands or VWAP) for one token'), plus the computation source ('server-side from the token's USD candles across every pool'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling getPoolIndicator and links to getTokenOHLCV as the same series, so an agent can route correctly without opening schemas.

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 explicit when-to-use and when-not guidance: when the caller lacks a valid paid key, 'fall back to getPoolIndicator on the token's most liquid pool, found with getTokenPools sorted by volume.' Names the alternatives and the exact condition that selects them.

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