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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention that the tool is read-only, whether it requires authentication, rate limits, or data freshness. The description only lists capabilities without any behavioral context.

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 a single, run-on sentence listing many items. While it is reasonably concise, it lacks structure (e.g., bullet points) that would improve readability. It earns its place but could be more scannable.

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 complex multi-action functionality, the description should explain what each analysis returns. It only lists analysis names without details. For a tool with 5 parameters and 9 actions, this is insufficient for an agent to understand inputs and outputs.

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 80% (period, symbol, symbols, timeframe are described). The description adds the concept of 'crypto pairs' and 'batch analysis' but does not clarify parameter defaults or syntax (e.g., timeframe format). It adds marginal value beyond the schema, warranting a baseline score.

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 the tool performs technical analysis on crypto pairs, listing specific indicators (RSI, MACD, Bollinger Bands, etc.) and analysis types (full composite, batch). This sets it apart from sibling tools like 'crypto_market' or 'backtest' which cover different domains.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'backtest' or 'crypto_price'. It does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or when to avoid it. This lack of context makes it harder for an agent to select the correct tool.

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