volume_breakout_scanner

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavior: that an empty list means 'no matches today' and explicit error envelope handling, enriching transparency beyond annotations.

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 concise and well-structured, starting with the core purpose, followed by a clear parameter list, and ending with return behavior. Every sentence adds value without 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?

The description covers all parameters and return envelope behavior. However, it does not specify the fields inside the returned dicts (keys like 'symbol', 'volume', etc.), which would be useful for complete understanding.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description explains all 5 parameters with examples and context (e.g., 'exchange: Exchange name like KUCOIN, BINANCE...'), fully compensating for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 'Detect coins with volume breakout + price breakout,' using specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'top_gainers' and 'bollinger_scan' by focusing on volume and price breakout detection.

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 implicitly guides use for detecting volume and price breakouts. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or comparison to alternatives among the many sibling scanners.

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