rating_filter

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by specifying the return format (list of dicts or error envelope) and a constraint (max limit 50). However, it does not disclose response size or rate limits. Overall, it provides moderate additional behavioral context.

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 a well-structured docstring with clear Args and Returns sections. It is informative but slightly verbose (e.g., 'Returns list[dict]' is redundant given output schema exists). Still, every sentence contributes value, and it is front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 that the tool has 4 optional parameters with defaults and an output schema, the description covers parameters and error behavior adequately. It does not explain the concept of Bollinger Band rating beyond the number mapping, but this is acceptable for domain-specific tools. Overall, it is complete enough for effective use.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully explain parameters. It does: exchange with examples, timeframe with full list, rating with numeric range and label mapping, limit with max value. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema properties.

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 'Filter coins by Bollinger Band rating.' It uses a specific verb ('filter') and resource ('coins'), and the criterion is explicitly named. Sibling tools like 'bollinger_scan' and 'coin_analysis' serve different purposes, so this tool is well-distinguished.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only describes parameters and basic functionality. Usage context is implied from the tool name and parameters, but no when/when-not advice or alternative tool references are given.

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