fomo_get_spotlight

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states that the tool returns data; it does not describe the meaning of 'best', any sorting or filtering, authentication needs, error behavior, or side effects.

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 extremely short, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently concise. It omits critical details needed for correct invocation, so the brevity is a deficiency.

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 simple one-parameter tool, the description still leaves key context unclear, such as what 'id' represents and what the returned trade and comment data looks like. It does not adequately cover the selection or invocation conditions.

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 provides no description for 'id' and schema coverage is 0%. The description only loosely implies that the 'id' refers to a user, but it does not explicitly define the ID's semantic meaning or format.

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 indicates the resource ('best trades and comments') and the user scope. The action is implied by the tool name 'get', but it lacks explicit differentiation from similar sibling tools like fomo_get_user_swaps or fomo_get_trade_comments.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'for a user' implies user-scoped usage, but no exclusions or alternative conditions are stated.

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