Análisis de un activo

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world), yet the description adds substantial context beyond them: demo-key 403 behavior for non-BTC/ETH coins, the fact that demo responses are always alpha, and the exact empty-result envelope semantics. This is exactly the kind of auth/error/result behavior the description should carry.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: purpose first, then access rules, then response interpretation. It is on the long side for a 3-param read tool and slightly re-states the view/engine access rules already in the schema, but nearly every sentence carries usable information, so little is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly shoulders the burden of explaining the return values — audit_trail, protocol_hash, z_score vs Bollinger-band semantics, stablecoin reading, and the {status:success, data:null} empty case. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret the result without guessing.

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%, so 3 is the baseline, but the description adds meaning the schema does not fully carry — the demo key forces an alpha response in any view, and unknown coins 403 even when pulse is requested. That interaction between view and key state goes beyond the enum 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?

States a specific verb and resource — deep deterministic analysis of a single asset via CryptoCapi's engine, with the two views (pulse/alpha) named. It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from siblings like get_signal or scan_market, leaving the agent to infer which analysis surface to pick.

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?

Gives concrete conditional guidance: pulse needs no paid pass, alpha requires the Radar Alpha (or Quant Plus with engine="quant_plus") pass, and the demo key path. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when to prefer this over get_signal, so context is clear but exclusions are absent.

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