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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively communicates the authentication requirement (Bearer-auth with Pro API key), the data access tiers, and the special condition of delayed public data. It does not elaborate on rate limits or side effects, but 'snapshot' implies a read operation, and the auth note is a valuable disclosure.

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 concise, containing exactly two sentences that cover the core purpose, parameter semantics, authentication, and public-call limitations. Every clause conveys meaningful information, and the key details are front-loaded in the first sentence with the parameter explanation leading into the auth note.

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?

The description is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly: it names the single required parameter, shows an example value, and explains the authentication-dependent behavior. Since an output schema exists, the return structure need not be spelled out, and the trade-offs between Pro and public calls are clearly noted, making the context complete for this moderately simple tool.

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 schema has one required string parameter with no additional description, yet the description explicitly explains that 'coin' is a ticker such as 'btc'. This provides the necessary semantic meaning beyond the raw schema and gives a concrete example, fully compensating for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 identifies the tool's function as providing a combined live snapshot for a crypto coin and lists specific metrics (price, 24h change, funding, open interest, perp basis, positioning regime). However, it uses a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb like 'get' or 'fetch', and it does not directly contrast with sibling tools, though the listed fields give a distinct profile.

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 clear context by explaining the difference between Pro API key usage and public calls, including the 15-minute delay and absence of the directional signal. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over its siblings such as get_funding or perp_dashboard, nor does it mention any exclusions.

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