get_market_pulse

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that data is real-time, covers a 5m window, includes several specific metrics, and notes a $0.02 USDC cost. However, it does not disclose whether the tool is safe/read-only, what may cause failures, or any rate limits or token formatting requirements.

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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys useful information efficiently: cost, data freshness, returned metrics, and acceptable token types. There is no fluff or repetition of the schema properties.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete: it specifies the input domain, the key metrics returned, and the Tier 1 cost. It could be more complete by mentioning any preconditions such as token format or chain context, but given low complexity, it covers most necessary context.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds that 'token' can be any cryptocurrency or DEX token, which gives the parameter broad scope. It does not clarify whether the token should be a symbol, address, or standardized identifier, but the schema contains only one required parameter and the description supplies the essential semantic.

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 has a specific verb ('Fetches') and states a clear deliverable: real-time 5m momentum, buy/sell counts, volume, and buy-pressure score. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like get_orderbook_depth and get_whale_flow by focusing on token momentum/sentiment rather than order books or whale activity.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus the sibling alternatives. The mention of 'Tier 1 ($0.02 USDC)' provides pricing information but not use-case direction. 'Any cryptocurrency or DEX token' defines token scope but not the situational choice between this and get_orderbook_depth or get_whale_flow.

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