crypto_registry

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-schema context: the tool only runs inside the Stochastly desktop app, which must be installed and hold an Atelier or Portfolio licence, and each entry carries an `implemented` flag. It stops short of describing return shape or size, which keeps it at a 4.

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 actual purpose is buried behind a two-sentence installation/licence preamble that precedes it, so the definition is not front-loaded. The remaining sentences are tight and each earns its place, but the ordering forces an agent to read boilerplate before learning what the tool does.

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 carries the burden of telling the agent what comes back, and it does (strategies plus an `implemented` flag). Prerequisites, sibling routing and return content are all covered; only finer detail such as entry count or pagination is absent, which is minor for a static registry read.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. The description's field list (timeframes, directions, grids, filters) describes output, not inputs, which is the right place given no arguments exist.

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+resource ('List the cross-sectional crypto strategies') and enumerates the returned fields (timeframes, directions, parameter grids, filters, `implemented` flag). It also explicitly disambiguates from siblings, saying node_catalog is for graph node keys and registries for general strategy families.

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 an explicit use case ('see which crypto ranking strategies exist') and names two alternatives with the condition that selects each (node_catalog for graph node keys, registries for general families). Nothing is left to inference about when to reach for this tool.

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