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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral-disclosure burden. It explains the advisory signal and its underlying metrics, implying a read-only, current-market check, but it omits operational traits such as permissions, rate limits, data freshness, and caching 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 front-loaded with the core question and risk-regime output, then lists supporting metrics. It is informative but somewhat dense in its metric enumeration, so it is efficient without being maximally tight.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain the return signal, and it does so by naming the risk regime and the component metrics. It is largely complete for a no-parameter market-wide pulse, though it could add freshness or update-frequency context.

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 tool has zero parameters and an empty schema, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The baseline score for a no-parameter tool is appropriate here.

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 that the tool reports whether the StonkFun market is rising or falling by producing a RISK_ON / NEUTRAL / RISK_OFF regime from breadth, volume, launch, revenue, and trend metrics. It is specific about the resource and output, but it does not explicitly name or distinguish itself from sibling tools such as stonk_reward_risk, stonk_preflight, or stonk_screener.

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?

It gives an explicit usage context: 'Check it before entering any reward-coin position.' That tells the agent when the tool is useful, but it does not state when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools for related checks.

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