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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=true): paper trading only, virtual funds, not financial advice, and detailed execution cost policies for different order types. This helps the agent understand the simulation nature, though annotations already indicate non-destructive read.

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 purpose and data list, then covers prerequisites, paper trading, and execution costs. It is somewhat long but each part adds value, especially for behavioral transparency. Could be trimmed slightly without losing key info.

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?

Given the output schema exists, the description covers the input requirements, output components, prerequisites, paper trading context, and fee disclosure comprehensively. No obvious gaps for a context-gathering tool.

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 schema already describes both parameters (coinId and agentTrace). The description adds the prerequisite to use resolve_symbol for coinId and explains output content (e.g., prediction markets), but doesn't add new parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema's descriptions.

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 it provides 'Compact factual context for ONE coin to form a thesis' and lists specific data points (price, changes, market cap, etc.), distinguishing it from siblings like get_candles or resolve_symbol. It explicitly instructs to call resolve_symbol first, reinforcing its unique role.

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 explicitly says to call resolve_symbol first and notes that it provides facts only, for thesis formation. It does not explicitly list when not to use it, but the context of paper trading and the list of siblings imply its specific use case. Could be improved by mentioning alternatives like get_candles for historical data.

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