botindex_crypto_intel

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'AI-powered' and '$0.05', hinting at cost, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, output format, or whether it's a read-only vs. mutative operation. The description is insufficient 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 concise with three short phrases and a cost indicator, front-loading key capabilities. However, the lack of a clear verb and structure (e.g., fragmented phrases) slightly reduces effectiveness, but it's generally efficient with minimal waste.

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 the complexity implied by 'AI-powered crypto correlation intelligence' and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how results are formatted, or operational constraints, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand and use the tool effectively.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter semantics, but this is appropriate given the lack of parameters. A baseline score of 4 is assigned as the description doesn't need to compensate for any gaps.

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 the tool provides 'AI-powered crypto correlation intelligence' with specific capabilities like 'regime detection, portfolio risk clusters, alpha opportunities', which gives a general purpose. However, it doesn't specify a clear verb-action (e.g., 'analyze', 'generate', 'retrieve') or distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'botindex_hl_correlation_matrix' or 'botindex_hyperliquid_intel', making it somewhat vague.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions capabilities but doesn't indicate specific contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions. With many sibling tools in the crypto domain, this lack of differentiation leaves the agent without clear usage direction.

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