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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does include pricing ($0.01 per call), a disclaimer (educational data, not financial advice), and payment methods (x402, API key). However, it does not describe whether the tool is read-only, how errors or rate limits are handled, or what the actual response format is (e.g., list vs. feed). It also mentions a 'feed' but doesn't clarify if this is streaming or a one-time response.

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 overly verbose, mixing essential purpose with payment instructions, disclaimers, and a pointer to get_catalog. The core purpose is stated early, but the bulk of the text is unrelated to the tool's functionality. This dilutes the message and adds unnecessary length for a tool with a single optional parameter.

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 tool has only one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides some context about the content (types of anomalies) but fails to explain the 'limit' parameter or the response structure. It also doesn't mention any pagination or data freshness. The disclaimer and payment info are useful but do not compensate for missing functional details.

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 only parameter, 'limit', is completely undocumented in the description. The schema provides a default of 10 but no explanation of its meaning or effect. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description fails to compensate, leaving the agent to guess what this parameter controls (likely the number of anomalies to return).

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 tool provides recent anomaly detections and lists specific types (pump/psyop spikes, rug precursors, coordinated wallet activity, data-integrity divergences). The name 'get_anomalies' aligns with this purpose. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_signals' or 'get_recent_intel' beyond the name, so it's not a full 5.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions browsing all tools with get_catalog, but does not explain under what circumstances one would prefer anomaly detections over other signal types. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.

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