get_market_sentiment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only implies a read operation via 'Get' but says nothing about authentication requirements, data sources, rate limits, or what the analysis returns. This is minimal transparency for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, which is structurally sound. However, it is so terse that it underspecifies the tool's behavior and parameters, making it inadequately sized for the information an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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 that there are no annotations, no output schema, and the single parameter is undocumented, the description should do more to explain what 'market sentiment' means, what the token represents, and what the analysis returns. It leaves critical invocation details unaddressed, though the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no nested objects) limits the severity.

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% and there is one required parameter ('token') with no description. The tool description does not mention the parameter at all, so it fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation. The agent receives no semantic guidance on what 'token' should be.

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 verb and resource ('Get overall market sentiment analysis'), making the general purpose inferable. However, it largely restates the tool name, does not clarify the scope (which market or token), and fails to distinguish it from sibling tools like get_social_sentiment. This is a vague purpose rather than a specific one.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool, when not to use it, or what alternatives exist. It does not mention the required token parameter or any context that would help an agent choose this over get_social_sentiment. This falls under 'no guidance' (score 2).

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