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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: 'read live', '60s cache', 'free and unsigned', and the existence of a signed paid endpoint. This discloses data freshness and auth/security nuances without contradicting the readOnlyHint.

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?

Two tight sentences. The first sentence delivers the core purpose and source; the second covers licensing/caching/alternative. No filler.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential context: what, where, how fresh, and what alternatives exist. Nothing is missing.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to add parameter info and appropriately focuses elsewhere.

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 it returns the current BTC/ETH risk regime (calm | elevated | crash) with a suggested posture, and specifies the source (GBLIN's on-chain Crash Shield on Base). This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like risk.attestation_sample.

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 provides clear context about the free, live endpoint vs. a paid signed alternative, implying when to use each. However, it could be more explicit about when NOT to use this tool (e.g., when offline verification is needed).

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