NexoTrade

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

Annotations already declare this is read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds useful context beyond them: the score range, the four-year comparison window, the component factors, and the fact that the result includes 'its parts.' It does not discuss auth or rate limits, but those are lower-priority given 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?

The description is two compact sentences with the core definition front-loaded, followed by a clarifying exclusion. It contains no redundant or filler language.

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 read-only tool with one optional parameter, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains the metric, score range, comparison window, factors, and exclusions. It could be slightly more explicit about what the returned 'parts' look like or how to interpret zone boundaries, but nothing essential to invoking the tool appears 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 description coverage is 100%, and the single optional parameter 'historico' is fully documented in the schema as requesting daily scores when set to 1. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description clearly defines the tool as producing a 1–100 Bitcoin zone score comparing Bitcoin to its own last four years across trend, momentum, funding, fear and greed. It does not explicitly name sibling tools such as fear_greed or funding, so sibling differentiation is only implicit through the composite metric framing.

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?

It gives implied usage by stating the score measures how high or low Bitcoin is relative to its own history and explicitly says it is 'not cheap/expensive and not a signal.' However, it does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide explicit exclusions beyond those two negative clarifications.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the scope of the data (weekly window and returned fields), which is useful context, but it does not disclose the default filtering (only high importance unless specified) or the language default, which materially affect the result.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the scope and returned fields are stated immediately. Every element earns its place.

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 read-only lookup with fully documented enum parameters and no output schema, the description covers the resource, time window, and returned fields adequately. The only gap is not flagging the default filters, which are in the schema but easy to miss.

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 description coverage is 100%, with all four enum parameters documented including defaults (Spanish language, high importance only). The description mentions 'importance' and the time window but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides, so 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?

The description names the specific resource (economic releases) and scope (this week or next week) and lists the data fields returned (time, importance, forecast, previous, actual). It clearly distinguishes the tool from the crypto-focused siblings like bitcoin_zone or funding, though it omits an explicit verb like 'returns'.

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 phrase 'This week's or next week's' implies the tool is for near-term scheduled releases, giving some usage context. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mentions the default behaviors (Spanish language, high importance only) that affect what the agent will receive.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds value by enumerating the exact payload (index, band, historical comparison points), which is the main behavioral fact an agent needs given there is no output schema.

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, zero waste, front-loaded with the resource and its value range. Every clause conveys distinct information about the returned fields.

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 burden of explaining return values and does so precisely. Minor residual ambiguity: it is unclear whether the '30 days ago' figure is always present or only when `historico=1` is set, since the description lists both 7- and 30-day values unconditionally.

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?

The single parameter `historico` is fully documented in the schema, including its enum value and effect ('With 1, also the last 30 days'). Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies; the description adds no additional parameter meaning and does not note that the parameter is optional.

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 the exact resource (today's crypto fear and greed index), the value range (0-100), and the companion fields returned (band, yesterday, 7 and 30 days ago). An agent immediately knows what data this yields. No sibling differentiation, but the sibling list is unrelated analytics tools, so confusion risk is low.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: this is clearly a point-lookup for market sentiment. There is no explicit 'use this when...' guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no note on freshness/caching. For a simple read-only lookup tool, implicit usage is largely adequate.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and non-open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes real behavioral context beyond that: the 8-hour averaging window, that values are percentages, and that they are aggregated across exchanges. It omits the observation horizon (the 30-day series only appears in the schema) and whether the result is a single figure or a time series.

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 compact sentence with the core attribute (8-hour average, %, per coin, cross-exchange) front-loaded and no filler. Nothing is wasted and nothing essential to identifying the metric is buried.

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 and one optional parameter, the bar is modest, but the description leaves the return shape ambiguous: 'average' suggests a scalar while the schema's parameter text implies a 30-day series. For a simple read-only lookup this is adequate but not fully self-sufficient.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single enum parameter documents its own meaning, including the BTC default and the 30-day series scope. The description's 'per coin' merely echoes the schema and adds no format or default detail, 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?

The description names a specific resource (8-hour funding rate of perpetual futures) and qualifies it precisely: averaged, in percent, per coin, across exchanges. A verb is only implied, but no sibling tool covers funding data, so there is no ambiguity about what this tool retrieves.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternative to reach for; the description is purely a data summary. An agent must infer that this is the tool for funding-rate requests solely from the name and title.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the return content is spatial zones with side and strength, and explicitly excludes prices or amounts. It says nothing about pagination, freshness, or behavior when the map is empty.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, and the resource plus the negative scoping constraint are both front-loaded. Nothing could be cut without losing meaning.

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 must convey what comes back, and it does: zones, clustering side, strength, and the explicit absence of prices/amounts. Combined with a fully documented schema and read-only annotations, that is nearly enough; only edge cases (empty map, staleness, leverage filter interaction) are unaddressed.

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 every parameter carries its own English description including defaults ('without it, 1h'), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no semantics for moneda, minima, horizonte, antiguedad or apalancamiento beyond what the schema already supplies.

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 the resource precisely (liquidation map zones) and the assets covered (Bitcoin or Ethereum), and enumerates what the output answers: where clusters are, which side, how strong. It also draws a hard boundary ('No prices or amounts'), so the agent knows this is not a price/volume tool. Sibling differentiation is only implicit — no sibling is named.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternative tool is named; the only routing signal is the implicit exclusion of price data. An agent must infer from the purpose alone whether to call this instead of, say, funding.

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

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower; the description still adds the useful disclosure that each alert's active/paused state and last-fired time are included, which is return-content context with no output schema. No auth or rate-limit context, but nothing contradictory.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, with return contents listed compactly. Minor vagueness in 'type, parameters' but no wasted text.

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-optional-param, no-output-schema read tool, the description supplies what annotations and schema cannot: the shape of the returned data. Only the language parameter's effect on output is left entirely to the schema.

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?

One optional enum parameter with 100% schema description coverage; the description adds nothing about the language parameter, so the schema carries it. 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 key owner's alerts) and enumerates the fields returned (type, parameters, active/paused, last fired). It doesn't name a sibling, but the sibling set (bitcoin_zone, funding, tradeaudit_*) is unrelated, so differentiation is less critical.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'the key owner's own alerts' suggests this is the read path for the caller's alerts, and 'Read only' hints it is non-mutating. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or alternative named.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so safety is covered. The description contributes useful context about the 30-day volume window and that rank history is included, but says nothing about history depth, pagination, or behavior for accounts with no trades.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the core scope appears before the list of returned data. The colon-separated enumeration is dense but readable.

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 four data groups returned, which is the main thing an agent needs. Gaps remain around history length and auth requirements, but for a zero-required-param read tool this is close to sufficient.

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?

Only one optional parameter exists and the schema fully documents it, including the enum and the Spanish default, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no language or formatting guidance beyond that, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 a specific resource (the key owner's own rank) and enumerates exactly what it returns: current rank, 30-day traded volume, next-rank requirement, and rank history. None of the siblings (funding, fear_greed, liquidation_map, etc.) overlap, so differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 never says when to call this versus anything else, nor what prerequisites exist (e.g. whether an API key or trading history is required). The phrase 'the key owner's own' hints that it is self-scoped, but that is inference, not guidance.

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

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), and the description adds meaningful context on top: the scope is restricted to the key owner's own closed trades, amounts are denominated in USDT, and the output includes plain-language conclusions. It does not mention behavior when no trades match or any limits on the aggregation window.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, with the currency caveat appended where it belongs. No filler or repetition.

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 returned dimensions (net result, win rate, pair/side/month/weekday/hour breakdowns, leverage, streaks, conclusions) plus the USDT unit, so an agent knows what to expect. Minor gaps remain around empty-result behavior and defaults, though the schema covers defaults for the period.

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 description coverage is 100% and two parameters carry enums, so the schema already documents pair, side, time zone, period and connection filters. The description only restates that a period applies and that amounts are in USDT, adding little beyond the structured fields, which is the expected baseline.

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+resource: an aggregated summary of the owner's own closed trades, with an explicit enumeration of the metrics returned (net result, win rate, breakdowns, streaks, conclusions). It is clearly distinct from a raw trade list, though it never names tradeaudit_trades to make the contrast explicit.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'Summary ... for a period' signals an analytics/overview use case, while the sibling tradeaudit_trades presumably returns individual trades. There is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusion, and no guidance on when to prefer one over the other.

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

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description usefully adds ordering, page size, and the pagination mechanism, though it does not discuss auth, rate limits, or response details.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with scope and ordering, and the pagination instruction is direct. There is no filler or repetition.

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 five-parameter read-only listing tool with a fully described schema and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: scope, ordering, page size, and pagination. It could still mention the `siguiente` return token more explicitly or differentiate from `tradeaudit_summary`, but it is largely complete.

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 all five parameters are already documented. The description only restates the pagination meaning of `antes`, adding little beyond the schema, which makes the baseline score of 3 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?

The description clearly states a specific resource and scope: the key owner's own closed trades, returned newest first in pages of 50. It is distinguishable from a generic trades tool, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling tradeaudit_summary.

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?

It gives pagination guidance via `antes` and the previous response's `siguiente`, but does not say when to use this tool versus `tradeaudit_summary` or other siblings. Usage is implied rather than explicitly scoped.

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