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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds context by stating 'Read-only public research data' and clarifying 'No account access, no order placement or fund transfers,' which reinforces the non-destructive nature and adds a disclaimer about investment advice. This goes slightly beyond annotations by framing the tool's purpose as research data.

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 concise and well-structured. It leads with the core purpose and contents, then immediately provides routing instructions to sibling tools, and ends with safety disclaimers. Every sentence serves a purpose, and there is no redundant 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?

Given that this is a simple zero-parameter tool with an output schema available, the description fully covers what the tool does, what it includes, and when to use alternatives. There is nothing else an agent needs to know to invoke it correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is empty. Per the baseline rule, with 0 params the score is 4. The description doesn't need to elaborate on parameters, and it doesn't, instead focusing on scope and alternatives. This is appropriate.

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 a broad market dashboard covering cap, volume, dominance, and sentiment, and explicitly distinguishes it from siblings by noting it does not include stablecoin ranking. It names specific alternatives for different use cases, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: use this tool for a broad market overview, but for stablecoin-only ranking use get_stablecoin_info, for a single asset use get_market_snapshot, and for many symbols use batch_market_snapshot. This clearly specifies when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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