crypto_news

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds important operational context about x402 payment, API-key access, and HTTP 402 with a decoded price that is not a failure. It does not cover rate limits or pagination behavior, but the payment/auth disclosure is substantive 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 definition is front-loaded with the core purpose, then example, usage, and behavior, which is easy to scan. It repeats 'newest first' and includes some nonessential framing, but most sentences carry useful information.

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 a simple read-only news search with no output schema, the description is complete: it lists return fields, names sources, explains filtering, gives an example, and covers auth/payment behavior. Nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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 q, limit, and source are already documented in the schema. The description mentions keyword/source filtering and gives an example with q and limit, but it adds little semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states a specific resource and verb-like capability: latest crypto headlines aggregated from named outlets, newest first, with listed fields. It also explicitly distinguishes the tool from market data, so an agent can route news queries correctly without opening the 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?

It gives a clear use case: latest crypto headlines from major outlets, newest first, and an exclusion: not for market data. It does not name a specific alternative market-data sibling such as price or ohlcv, so it falls short of the strongest when/when-not guidance.

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