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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the scanning behavior and output (trading signals), but does not explicitly note whether it is read-only, rate limits, or side effects. 'Scan' suggests read-only but is not explicit.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently communicates the action, scope, and output.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain what a trading signal looks like or the result format. It only says 'return trading signals for each', which is minimally sufficient but incomplete for an agent expecting to consume the result. The lack of annotations also reduces completeness.

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%, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds meaning to the 'limit' parameter by clarifying that the scan selects 'top cryptocurrencies by volume', which is beyond the schema's description. It does not add to 'interval' but the overall added context raises the score.

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 scans top cryptocurrencies by volume and returns trading signals for each. The verb 'scan' and resource 'top cryptocurrencies' with the outcome 'trading signals' make the purpose specific and distinguishable from sibling tools that likely focus on individual indicators or signals.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus get_crypto_indicators or get_crypto_signal. It implies a screening use case but does not state when not to use it or mention alternatives.

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