crypto_trade_cost

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses what the tool computes, that it returns the formula and a pre-filled calculator link, and that weekly_buy unlocks an extra yearly-cost output. It does not explicitly state the call is side-effect-free or read-only, which leaves a small gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the cost components, then the return values, then the disclaimer. Every clause carries information, though the first sentence is long enough that it reads more like a spec list than a scannable statement.

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 an 8-parameter calculator with no output schema and no annotations, the description tells the agent what is computed and what comes back (formula plus calculator link), which is most of what is needed. The missing piece is routing guidance relative to the sibling finance calculators.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 8 parameters including examples and defaults; baseline is 3. The description adds a little meaning by tying weekly_buy to the yearly-cost output, but adds no detail on fee/spread/network-fee semantics beyond the schema.

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 names a specific computed resource in detail: trading fee, spread, network fees on buy+sale, break-even price rise, and recurring-buy yearly cost, plus the returned formula and calculator link. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling financial calculators, though it never names an alternative outright.

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?

Usage is only implied: the required amount/fee_pct/spread_pct inputs make clear it is a cost calculator, and 'Education only, not investment advice' sets a scope boundary. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance versus the other finance tools, and no stated prerequisites.

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