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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description's job is to add operational context — and it does: a liquidity floor silently excludes illiquid tokens, and both gainers and losers come back in a single response. It stops short of describing ordering, tie-breaking, or result shape, so not a 5.

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?

Two short sentences, no filler, and the identifying information (which resource, which scope) leads. The trailing note about both lists coming back together is the one piece of information an agent would otherwise get wrong.

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 three-optional-parameter read tool with full schema documentation and no output schema, the description covers scope, filtering, and response composition. Beyond 'both lists are returned together' it says nothing about per-token fields or ordering, so an agent can call it correctly but cannot fully anticipate the payload.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description earns above baseline by explaining why minLiquidityAda exists — it enforces 'enough pool liquidity to be tradeable' rather than being an arbitrary numeric cutoff — and by tying the change measurement to a 'window' as the key dimension of the result.

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?

States a specific resource and measurement (biggest price gainers and losers over a window) plus a scope qualifier (tokens with enough pool liquidity to be tradeable). That is far more precise than a restated name, but it never distinguishes itself from nearby siblings like get_market_overview, get_trending_tokens, or get_token_prices, leaving the agent to infer which one to call.

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 window/liquidity framing implies when the tool is appropriate (screening tradeable movers), and 'Both lists are returned together' warns the agent not to call it twice for gainers and losers. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no named alternative among the many sibling market tools.

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