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

Since no annotations are supplied, the description fully carries behavioral disclosure. It states the data source (live order flow and positioning), the output format (a ready-to-quote sentence plus structured signals including price, regime, funding, open interest, basis), AND the access condition for real-time vs delayed data. It also mentions where to generate the API key. No behavioral contradictions exist.

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 organized well with the core purpose stated first, followed by usage examples, then output details and the coin parameter. It is somewhat long (including the API key note) but every sentence carries meaningful guidance without redundant filler. It is not as tight as a three-line ideal but remains efficient.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema but with no detailed description, the tool description still explains the inputs (coin format), the output (sentence and signals), the authentication requirements, and the data freshness tradeoff. It clearly positions the tool within the sibling set by emphasizing causal analysis, making it complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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 only parameter 'coin' is explicitly described as a ticker like 'btc', 'eth', 'sol', which adds essential semantic detail that the schema (with zero description coverage) lacks. This fully clarifies what value to pass and leaves no ambiguity about format or examples.

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 uses a specific verb ('Explain') and a specific resource (crypto coin moves), and immediately clarifies the intended query types ('why is bitcoin down', etc.). It distinguishes the tool from siblings by emphasizing its focus on the cause of a move via order flow and positioning, which is not present in the sibling names.

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 gives clear examples of usage ('why is bitcoin down', 'why is btc/ethereum pumping or dumping'), explicitly states the kind of question it is for, and provides concrete input format guidance (coin='btc', 'eth', etc.). It also gives authentication instructions and notes the difference between real-time (with API key) and delayed public calls, which is practical usage guidance.

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