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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic functionality and a powered-by note. It omits details like error handling for untracked tokens, rate limits, or that it's a read-only operation. For a simple data retrieval, this is insufficient.

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 sentences with the key information in the first sentence. The second sentence about Fusebox SDK is slightly extraneous but not wasteful. It is efficiently structured but could be trimmed.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and input. However, it does not specify the return format (e.g., a number or string with percentage), leaving the agent uncertain about the output structure.

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%, so the description adds no additional semantics for the tokenAddress parameter beyond what the schema already provides. The description's mention of 'ERC-20 token tracked by Fusebox' is only implicit context, not a parameter detail.

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 verb 'Returns' and specifies the resource: '24-hour percentage price change for an ERC-20 token tracked by Fusebox'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like fuse_get_token_price (current price) and fuse_trade_price_change_over_duration (custom duration).

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 over siblings. It does not mention alternatives or constraints (e.g., token must be tracked by Fusebox). The agent lacks context for tool selection.

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