Crypto news and sentiment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveness=false, so the description need not repeat those. It adds context that the sentiment score is 'pre-computed' and that data is 'descriptive', but does not disclose behaviors like default behavior when 'coin' is omitted, response structure, rate limits, or what 'macro picture' entails. Some value beyond annotations is present, but not a rich behavioral profile.

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, with the core purpose front-loaded. The first sentence is information-dense, covering headlines, sentiment range, and scope. The second sentence adds a caveat and a promotional URL, which slightly dilutes focus but does not introduce fluff. Overall, it is appropriately concise.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description explains the input (coin) and the general output (headlines + sentiment + macro picture) but does not detail the exact return structure, fields, or behavior when 'coin' is omitted. It also leaves 'macro picture' undefined. While not overly complex, the lack of output schema increases the need for description to clarify output, which is only partially met.

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's 'coin' parameter has no description (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It does so by stating the tool returns data 'for one coin', clearly indicating the parameter identifies the cryptocurrency of interest. It also explains the sentiment score range. This adds meaningful semantics, though it does not specify accepted value formats (e.g., symbol vs. name) or the effect of omitting the parameter.

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 states the tool provides 'Recent crypto headlines with a pre-computed sentiment score (-100 to +100)' for a specific coin plus a macro picture. This is a specific verb+resource (headlines/sentiment) and differentiates from sibling market-data tools by focusing on news and sentiment rather than trades or price data.

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 phrase 'Descriptive market data only' implies this is for informational/news purposes, not for live trading data. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings (e.g., whale_trades, market_snapshot) nor does it provide exclusions. The optional 'coin' parameter suggests single-coin queries, but usage context remains largely implicit.

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