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

With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure responsibility. It adds useful context about default scores being one configuration, premium customization, and data sourced from truevaluerankings.com. However, it does not disclose potential error handling, rate limits, or whether any mutation occurs, though the 'Returns' phrasing implies a read-only operation.

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 composed of five sentences, each adding relevant information (outputs, metric areas, methodology, configuration, source). It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and does not contain fluff, though it could be slightly more concise by merging some sentences.

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 one-parameter tool, the description is fairly complete: it lists all return components, explains the configurable nature, and cites the data source. It lacks details on output format or edge cases, but given the tool's simplicity and high schema coverage, this is adequate.

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% for the single required parameter 'coin', which is clearly described with examples. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score 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 states the tool returns a specific set of outputs (TVR Score, rank, valuation category, TVR Price, fair value gap) for a cryptocurrency, along with strongest/weakest metric areas. It is specific with a verb and resource, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_full_breakdown or get_custom_ranking, which limits the score to 4 rather than 5.

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 implies usage for obtaining a TVR score, and mentions premium customization, but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as compare_coins or get_custom_ranking. No when-not or alternative tool references are included.

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