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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: multi-source consensus and the $0.50 USDC per-call cost. However, it does not explain consensus failure behavior, latency, or what constitutes a resolvable 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?

The description is two functional sentences with no filler: the core behavior is front-loaded, and the cost note is separate and clear. Every word serves a purpose.

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?

The tool has no output schema and the description does not state the return value or shape. It also omits explanation of tolerance_pct, which is non-obvious in a multi-source consensus context, making the description incomplete for confident invocation despite clear purpose and cost transparency.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden of explaining parameters, but it only indirectly maps 'crypto asset' to symbol and 'above or below a threshold' to threshold/direction. It does not explain tolerance_pct, fiat, or how they interact, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent choosing parameter values.

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 verb ('Resolve'), a concrete resource ('crypto asset'), and the precise operation ('whether it is above or below a threshold'). It also distinguishes the tool from simple price lookups by adding 'multi-source consensus for settlement and verification workflows.'

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 explicitly states the intended use case ('for settlement and verification workflows'), giving an agent clear context for when to invoke it. It does not name alternatives or exclusion criteria, such as when get_verify_crypto_price would be preferred, but the stated workflow is a clear usage signal.

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