market_get_sentiment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safe, read-only nature is established. The description adds value by specifying the data source (alternative.me), the output (current index value plus historical daily readings), and the effect of the days parameter. This provides useful context beyond the annotations without contradiction.

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 two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and then adding return details. Every clause contributes meaningful information, with no redundancy or filler. It is appropriately concise for a simple read-only tool.

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 tool is simple with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description sufficiently explains what is returned (current index value, classification, and historical daily readings) and mentions the data source. Given the low complexity and strong annotations, the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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?

Schema coverage is 100% for the single 'days' parameter, and the schema already provides a detailed description including default and max values. The tool description adds little beyond referencing 'recent days' and implying that the parameter controls history length, which is already covered by the schema. Baseline 3 applies due to high schema 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 specifies the verb 'Fetch', the exact resource 'Crypto Fear & Greed Index from alternative.me', and the scope ('for the specified number of recent days'). It also differentiates this from sibling tools that handle protocols, tokens, or DEX data, making the tool's unique purpose unambiguous.

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?

While the description clearly implies this tool is for retrieving market sentiment via the Fear & Greed Index, it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions. There is no guidance like 'Use this for sentiment, and X for token prices'. The implied usage is clear, but no explicit comparison or alternatives are provided.

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