get_market_activity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does a good job: it discloses the upstream data source, that data is aggregated across all trading pairs, and that indexing can lag new launches by minutes. It stops short of documenting rate limits, failure behavior for unindexed tokens, or caching, which keeps it from a 5.

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 core purpose and scope are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the signal list and sibling routing follow logically. It is dense and slightly long, but nearly every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 and no annotations, the description compensates well by enumerating the derived signals returned and the aggregation scope. It still omits error behavior for unindexed tokens and any rate/refresh constraints, leaving a small gap for a data-fetch tool.

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?

There is a single parameter (mint) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already defines it as a base58 Solana public key. The description adds no extra syntax or format guidance beyond what the schema states, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Live trading activity for a token') plus the data source (DexScreener) and the exact metrics returned. It also contrasts itself with sibling get_risk_score, so an agent can distinguish it without opening another schema.

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?

Explicit routing guidance: 'Use this alongside get_risk_score: risk scoring says whether a token is a scam, this says whether anyone is actually buying it.' It also states a caveat for when it works (any indexed token) and a known limitation (pump.fun launches can lag a few minutes).

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