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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the required auth format ('Bearer ba_…') and implies a read-only metric operation, but it does not mention rate limits, time-window effects, or response behavior. Some useful behavioral context is present, but significant gaps remain.

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 extremely short and front-loaded with the key metric before the auth note. It contains no filler or repetition, though it is terse enough that some useful context is omitted.

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 and no annotations, so the description must explain the return value and parameter behavior. It only states a bare metric and an auth requirement, leaving an agent unaware of what windowMinutes does, what the output shape is, or any constraints on usage.

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 schema describes 'address' as 'Token address' but leaves 'windowMinutes' with only numeric bounds and no semantic meaning. The description does not mention or explain either parameter, and with 50% schema coverage it must compensate but does not.

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 'Unique buyers vs total buys' clearly identifies the core metric and is distinct from sibling tools like get_curve or get_signals. It lacks an explicit verb, but the meaning is not a tautology and an agent can infer the tool's purpose.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are there any exclusions or contextual signals. The only practical requirement mentioned is the Authorization header, which is not a usage guideline.

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