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

No annotations are provided, placing full burden on the description. The description reveals no behavioral traits—whether it is read-only, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or returns particular data. It is entirely opaque about runtime behavior.

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 extremely short but lacks structure and completeness. It resembles a topic tag rather than a tool specification, which is under-specification rather than conciseness.

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?

Despite low complexity with a single parameter, the description does not adequately specify the tool's purpose, expected output, or relation to other compliance tools. The regulatory citations are unhelpful without explanation, leaving the tool under-specified for an AI agent.

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 includes a description for token_symbol ('Token symbol'), achieving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameter, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. No extra context or formatting guidance is given.

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 is a fragment referencing regulatory articles ('MiCA Art. 24/25/53') and topics ('reserve management policy', 'Art. 53 eligibility') but does not state a clear action or outcome. It does not distinguish the tool from siblings like peg_deviation or custody_risk beyond a general regulatory 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 prerequisites, intended use cases, or exclusions. The agent is left to infer context from the tool name and regulatory references.

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