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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable behavioral context on top: it is read-only public research data, with no account access, no order placement or fund transfers, and not investment advice. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent set user expectations.

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 four short sentences, each carrying a distinct piece of information: the core purpose, routing to sibling tools, the read-only nature, and legal disclaimers. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and efficiently communicates the key distinctions and constraints without any fluff.

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?

The tool has a single optional parameter, an output schema, and clear routing for specific needs. The description covers the primary use case, the available categories, the read-only nature, and explicit disclaimers. Nothing an agent needs to correctly invoke this tool is missing, making it complete for its intended function.

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 coverage is 100% and the parameter description already lists the allowed values (all|defi|spot|perp|stablecoin|bridge) and behavior for unknown values. The description's mention of the same categories does not add meaningful new semantics beyond the schema. It restates what is already structured, so a baseline 3 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 states a specific purpose: a cross-sector dashboard covering DeFi, spot, perp, stablecoin, or bridge categories. It also explicitly contrasts with sibling tools by noting when to use get_bridge_metrics or get_platform_info, making the tool's scope unambiguous. Even without the title, an agent can tell what this tool does and how it differs from its siblings.

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 clearly indicates when to use this tool versus alternatives: it is the cross-sector dashboard, while specific bridge rankings or chain details should go to get_bridge_metrics, and single protocol details to get_platform_info. This explicitly provides when/when-not guidance, leaving no ambiguity about which tool to select for a given intent.

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