coin_analysis

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, covering safety and openness. Description adds that it's a 'technical readout' returning 'Detailed analysis with all indicators and metrics,' providing context beyond annotations without contradiction.

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?

Description is well-structured with a concise summary, usage guidance, an example, and clearly labeled Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value; no redundancy.

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?

Tool has 3 parameters, no output schema. Description covers usage, parameters, and sibling differentiation comprehensively. The Returns section is vague ('detailed analysis with all indicators and metrics'), but the tool is a technical analysis endpoint; completeness is high given the context.

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?

Despite input schema having no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), the description's Args section thoroughly explains each parameter: symbol with examples, exchange with a list and error handling hint, timeframe with interval list. This fully compensates for the schema gap.

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?

Description clearly states it provides detailed analysis for a single asset on a specific exchange and timeframe. It explicitly differentiates from siblings like multi_timeframe_analysis and combined_analysis, avoiding confusion.

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?

Description gives explicit instructions on when to use this tool versus alternatives: 'Use multi_timeframe_analysis instead when you need trend alignment... and combined_analysis when you also want news sentiment.' It also affirms this is the canonical tool, no other similar tool exists.

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