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

Beyond readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, the description transparently discloses that the call costs $0.25 USDC via x402 on Solana or Base, excludes stablecoins, sorts results, and matches GET /scan. This is useful behavioral context that annotations alone would not provide.

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 a single dense sentence with no filler, front-loading the payment requirement and core purpose. Parentheticals and embedded examples make it slightly run-on, but every clause adds substantive information.

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 read-only aggregate endpoint with no output schema, the description supplies payment, network, scope, sorting, market breadth, per-coin fields, the optional filter, and API equivalence. No critical detail is missing; the interval default is already covered by the schema.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no real parameter meaning beyond restating the signal filter; the interval parameter is entirely left to the schema, which already documents it.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it returns the Ichimoku Cloud signal for 148 top-200 non-stablecoin coins in one call, sorted by cloud distance. The market-wide scope and per-coin output fields clearly distinguish it from the single-coin sibling tools.

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 implies use for a broad market overview with an optional signal filter, but it never explicitly says when to choose this over ichimoku_signal, ichimoku_trend, or price_levels, nor does it state exclusions. The context is enough to infer general use, but explicit routing guidance is absent.

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