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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds valuable context on how to interpret AltRank (a rank where 1 is strongest) and explains behavior in falling markets. This goes beyond the annotations, though it doesn't describe output structure or potential caveats like data freshness.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. It efficiently explains the rank concept and provides a pairing suggestion. There's minimal fluff, and each sentence contributes to understanding the tool. It's concise and well-structured.

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 parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is mostly complete. It explains the core concept of AltRank and relative standing, and gives a usage hint. It doesn't describe the return format (e.g., list of assets with scores) but that's a minor gap given the simplicity and likely obvious output.

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 schema has a single parameter 'limit' with a default of 10 and type integer, but schema description coverage is 0% because the description never mentions limit. Since coverage is low, the description must compensate, but it doesn't explain the meaning or behavior of limit. While the parameter is self-explanatory, the description fails to add any value for it, so a low score is warranted.

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 states the tool returns 'the assets ranked best by AltRank right now' and distinguishes relative standing from absolute, which is clear. It doesn't explicitly say it returns a list or top-N, but that's implied. It also doesn't name the resource explicitly beyond 'assets', but that's clear enough. It stands apart from siblings like get_asset_scores by focusing on ranking.

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 suggests pairing with get_asset_scores when the relative vs absolute distinction matters, which gives one alternative. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this over other ranking tools like get_top_galaxy_scores or get_trending_assets, nor does it state when not to use it. The guidance is partial.

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