Cross-market screener

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

Annotations already declare read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that data is 'descriptive' only and explains that bands are relative to each pair's own recorded days and whale flow is relative to the coin's own average—important behavioral nuances beyond what annotations provide.

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: three sentences with the core purpose front-loaded. The first sentence is dense but packs essential filter semantics. The final sentence with a developer-plan URL is somewhat promotional but not overly verbose.

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?

With 6 parameters and no output schema, the description does a decent job explaining filter semantics but lacks return value details, default behavior, and the meaning of limit and compact. Given the tool's complexity, it is adequate for a high-level understanding but not fully complete for correct invocation without additional assumptions.

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 explains funding_band/oi_band values (record high, top 5%, etc.) and whale_mult_min relative to the coin's average, and unusual_only as radar-unusual, but it omits the limit and compact parameters entirely, leaving those without meaning.

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 screens every recorded pair in one call, with specific filters (funding_band, oi_band, whale_mult_min, unusual_only). It is explicitly labeled 'The discovery call,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools like market_snapshot or market_history.

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 'The discovery call' implies it is intended for initial broad market screening across all pairs. It gives context for when to use it but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, despite clear positioning among siblings.

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