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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, closed-world behavior, so the description's contribution is the returned content: a 0–100 scale with defined anchors and values from one day, one week, and one month ago. It does not describe output shape or limits, but adds useful behavioral context beyond the 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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the resource and its scale, with no redundant or wasted phrasing.

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 simple one-parameter read with rich annotations and complete schema coverage, the description sufficiently explains the metric, scale, supported scopes, and historical snapshots. Even without an output schema, the return content is adequately summarized for an agent to call and interpret it.

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 optional coin parameter is fully documented there. The description restates the whole-market/BTC/ETH/SOL choices but adds no validation, case sensitivity, or default details beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

Names the specific index, its 0–100 scale, and the supported scopes (whole market, BTC, ETH, SOL). It is clearly a market-sentiment lookup and is easily distinguishable from the derivatives and liquidation siblings.

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 implies use for checking current market sentiment and shows the available scopes, but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives. For a standalone lookup with unrelated siblings this is adequate but not strong.

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