Cryptocurrency candidates

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or free of side effects, though 'Impersonal research data, not advice' implies a non-actionable output. It adds some behavioral context by explaining the macro overlay, but omits details like data freshness or any limitations.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and methodology, followed by a helpful disclaimer. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description fully covers what the user can expect: a ranked list of crypto candidates with the technical and macro factors considered. The disclaimer adds a necessary caveat about its non-advice nature.

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 tool has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so there is nothing to explain. Per the baseline for 0-parameter tools, the score is 4. The description adds context about the methodology but does not need to specify parameter details.

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 produces ranked cryptocurrency candidates and specifies the exact signals used (RSI, ATR, VWAP, momentum, Fear & Greed, news sentiment). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like crypto_yields and options_research by focusing on general crypto research rather than yields or options.

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 usage context is implied through the description – it is for cryptocurrency research based on technical and sentiment signals. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings or mention any exclusions, so it lacks direct guidance on alternatives.

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