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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: operates on one or comma-separated exchanges, returns one result per exchange, does not blend, and requires Pro key. However, it omits other behavioral details such as error handling, rate limits, or output format, so partial transparency.

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?

Three sentences with no fluff—every clause contributes information. The description is appropriately short and front-loaded with the core action. It loses one point for not structuring parameter hints, but overall it is compact and readable.

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 4-parameter tool with zero schema coverage and no annotations, this description is too sparse. It fails to explain the meaning of three parameters, lacks usage guidance, and does not mention output structure despite the existence of an output schema. An agent would struggle to invoke this tool correctly with only this text.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It vaguely hints at venues via 'one selected exchange or comma-separated exchanges' but leaves coin, impact_pct, and venue_class unexplained. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema's bare parameter names.

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 states a specific operation ('MASS on exchanges') and distinguishes it from siblings by noting 'one result per exchange; no blend.' It clearly identifies the resource (exchanges) and the action (MASS scan), though it does not define what MASS stands for.

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 implies usage (when you need MASS data per exchange) but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like mass_map. It mentions a prerequisite ('Pro key required') but does not explain when this is the right tool versus other scan/map tools.

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