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

Annotations already indicate a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds value by clarifying that the tool is 'Educational, never predictive,' which sets expectations about the output's nature. It also explains the output concept (Market Mood) and the moving-average basis, providing context beyond the safety 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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and a caveat. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff 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 relatively simple read-only tool with two well-described parameters and clear annotations, the description covers the purpose and output concept adequately. It lacks explicit alternative differentiators and output structure detail, but these are not critical given the schema and name. It is complete enough for its complexity.

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 both 'pair' and 'ma_type' fully described in the input schema. The tool description adds no parameter-specific information, so it relies on the schema. Baseline 3 applies because the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 what the tool does: it evaluates a crypto pair's price alignment with short, medium, and long-term moving averages and outputs the resulting Market Mood. The verb 'aligns' and resource 'crypto pair's price' make the purpose specific, and naming 'crypto' distinguishes it from the sibling get_price_alignment.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is the crypto-specific variant of get_price_alignment or any other context for usage. The name and description imply crypto pairs, but there is no explicit 'when to use' or 'instead of' guidance.

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