utilpeek: kimchi and USDT premium (BTC, ETH, USDT on local exchanges vs the global price)

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive safety, but the description goes well beyond them: data provenance (public tickers, Chainlink, ECB/BCRA FX), 30s cache, typical (<0.5 s) vs worst-case (~10 s) latency, error semantics ('failed venue in errors', all-fail = 503 and not charged), and the ~0.5% noise floor. This is unusually rich operational disclosure.

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?

Front-loaded with the use case and alternative before any mechanics, and each clause carries distinct information. It is long and packs billing/legal/docs lines into the same block, which slightly dilutes scannability, but there is little true filler.

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?

An output schema exists so return-value structure need not be explained, and the description still covers scope (assets, countries), failure behavior, latency, cost and rate limits. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly 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 description coverage is 100% and both params are documented with allowed values and defaults in the schema itself. The description only restates that both are optional and default to all, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 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?

Specific verb+resource+scope: it measures the local-exchange premium (kimchi/USDT) versus global price, and explicitly names the sibling get_crypto_fear_greed_index as the alternative for global sentiment. An agent can distinguish it from the many other crypto tools 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 states the triggering need ('when an agent needs to gauge local demand for crypto') and routes the agent away to a named alternative ('For global sentiment use get_crypto_fear_greed_index'). That is explicit when-to-use plus an exclusion.

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