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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses the auth requirement, the paid-per-call model with chain/asset detail, the free-tier behavior, the exact failure mode (PaymentRequired, no charge), and the output composition (brief plus raw data). It omits rate-limit magnitude and latency/model-selection caveats, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the deliverable and followed by the operational constraints, with no filler. Density is high enough that pricing and quota details compete with the core purpose, but nothing is redundant.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials an agent needs before calling: what it produces, what it costs, what credentials are required, and what happens on failure. The one real gap is the undocumented symbols argument and the unspecified shape of the 'raw data' payload.

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 single `symbols` parameter is never mentioned in the description, and schema coverage is 0%; only the schema's own default of "BTC,ETH,SOL" hints at comma-separated ticker syntax. The phrase 'filtered movers' gestures at filtering but does not explain how the symbols argument scopes prices, movers, or funding.

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?

Names a concrete deliverable (a plain-English market brief) and enumerates its inputs (live prices, filtered movers, funding, Fear & Greed), which makes clear this is an aggregating narrative tool rather than a single-metric sibling like get_price or funding_rates. It stops short of explicitly stating its position relative to those siblings, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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 spends its guidance budget on operational preconditions (INFERHUB_API_KEY, $0.03 per call, free daily quota, PaymentRequired when unpaid) rather than on when to choose this over the individual-data siblings. The intended use—one-shot narrative overview instead of several point queries—is inferable but never stated.

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