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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses two critical traits: the output is calculated values only and 'never raw candles', and the call is paid at $0.005 USDC per call via x402. The payment requirement is exactly the kind of operational detail annotations cannot express.

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?

It is front-loaded with purpose and output contents, then cost and the discovery alternative. The indicator enumeration is long but each item is substantive; nothing is padding, though the sentence could be tightened slightly.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates what is returned and explicitly excludes raw candles, which is the right compensation. It does not say how many days of history come back or how 'price distance to each level' is expressed, leaving a small gap for a data-returning 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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains that 'asset' accepts an id or symbol and points at list_assets. The description only restates 'for one crypto asset' and repeats the list_assets hint, adding no new format or validation detail.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Get calculated daily indicators for one crypto asset') and then enumerates the exact indicator set (RSI14, MACD(12,26,9), ATR14, Bollinger %B, returns, highs/lows, price distance). This makes it clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_regime, get_trend, and get_signal, which are not indicator bundles.

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 gives an explicit use case ('technical context or mean-reversion/volatility levels') and routes asset discovery to the list_assets sibling. It stops short of saying when to prefer this over get_signal, get_trend, or get_regime, so the sibling differentiation is only partial.

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