get_copy_trade_gems

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds two concrete traits the annotations do not carry: no authentication required and a 20-second cache TTL, both directly relevant to how an agent should call and rate-limit this tool. It does not describe the response shape, but that is a minor omission for a read-only discovery endpoint.

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?

Three short sentences with zero waste, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the operational notes. Every sentence earns its place.

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 zero-param, read-only, no-output-schema tool, the description tells the agent what it returns conceptually, that no auth is needed, and that results are cached. The one gap is any hint about the fields or ranking in the response, which an agent might want when deciding between this and its trending peers.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to add; the baseline for a zero-param tool is 4. Schema coverage is reported at 100% for an empty property set, so nothing is missing.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get hot new tokens heavily traded by top wallets'), which distinguishes it in spirit from siblings like get_newest_tokens, get_trending_tokens, and get_bigbuys. 'Gems' is jargon, but the description immediately defines it, so an agent can infer the resource without opening the schema. No sibling is named explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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 'No auth. Cached 20s.' notes imply this is a lightweight discovery/read call, and 'hot new tokens heavily traded by top wallets' suggests a signal-screening use case. But there is no explicit when-to-use versus get_trending_tokens / get_newest_tokens / get_bigbuys, which occupy very similar territory. Usage is inferable but not directed.

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