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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses a significant side effect/requirement: the $0.01 USDC payment via x402 on Base L2 to the AgentWorld treasury. It also describes the output contents. However, it does not mention failure modes, idempotency, rate limits, or whether the tool has any other side effects beyond payment, leaving some behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 moderately sized and front-loads the critical payment requirement. Each sentence adds value: cost, what is returned, payment mechanism, and usage guidance. It is not overly verbose, though the lists of output components could be slightly tightened.

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?

With 0 parameters and an output schema present, the description covers the key invocation context: what it does, what it returns, cost/payment, and when to use it. It does not explain error cases or confirm read-only behavior, but these are less critical given the simple signature and output schema.

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 0 parameters and an empty input schema, so there is no parameter meaning to add. Per the rubric, 0 parameters warrants a baseline score of 4; the description correctly focuses on output and usage instead.

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 returns an 'LLM-analyzed digest' of crypto news with specific components (market_pulse, key_developments, sentiment scores, entities, actionable_takeaways, source articles). It also distinguishes itself from raw news feeds by being decision-ready, which differentiates it from sibling tools like get_crypto_news.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use this instead of raw news feeds when you need decision-ready insight, not just headlines.' This names the alternative category and gives the condition for choosing this tool, effectively covering both when and when-not.

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