cryptopulse

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits like side effects, rate limits, or auth requirements. It only lists endpoints and prices, omitting critical info such as whether calls are read-only, what happens on errors, or any mutation behavior. The description fails to compensate for the lack of 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 starts with an incomplete sentence ('Crypto security framework (with') and includes unnecessary marketing text. While the bullet list is somewhat structured, the overall length isn't justified by the information provided, and the broken sentence harms readability. It should be more concise and complete.

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 19 parameters and no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns, how to use the parameters, and cover edge cases. It lacks any mention of return format, error handling, or comprehensive parameter guidance. The parameter descriptions in the schema are minimal (e.g., 'goal', 'value_tier'), and the description doesn't fill these gaps.

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 coverage is 100% (all parameters documented). The description adds marginal value by labeling endpoints and their prices, but it does not explain parameter usage beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., 'goal' is just 'goal'). The baseline of 3 is appropriate with high schema coverage, but the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 identifies the tool as a cryptocurrency intelligence API with 10 specific endpoints, each briefly described (e.g., 'DeFi yield intelligence'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on crypto. However, it doesn't explicitly state the action verb like 'retrieve' or 'fetch', and the opening sentence feels promotional rather than directly stating the tool's function.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools (e.g., onchainpulse, alphapulse). It doesn't mention prerequisites, alternatives, or scenarios where this tool is not appropriate. The agent is left to infer from the endpoint list without any comparative context.

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