pulse_lethal_coins

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It lists the returned fields (coin, lifecycles, liquidations, etc.) and the metric used, but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, whether it requires authentication, or any side effects. This is adequate but minimal.

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 consists of two concise sentences that front-load the purpose and immediately state the output fields. Every word adds value; no unnecessary information.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains the return fields. The parameters are well-documented in the schema. However, it does not mention the sorting order (presumably descending by liquidation rate), which is a minor gap. Overall, it is complete enough for the tool's complexity.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, with all parameters having descriptions and defaults. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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?

Description clearly states the tool identifies coins with the highest per-lifecycle liquidation rate, which is distinct from sibling tools like pulse_survivors or pulse_hidden_gems. The verb 'Find' and explicit use case 'which coins blow people up most often?' leave no ambiguity.

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?

Description provides a clear usage scenario ('Use for...'), but does not mention when not to use it or list alternative tools. With many sibling tools, adding exclusions or comparisons would be beneficial, but the provided context is sufficient for basic use.

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