scan_tops

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It discloses payment ($0.01 per call via x402), 6-day trial, and the need to retry with a header. It also notes the tool ranks the whole universe by default. However, it does not explicitly state whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, though it is implied to be a scan.

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 somewhat long but front-loaded with purpose and payment. Every sentence adds value: purpose, payment model, cold-start hint, and contrast with pitch tool. Could be slightly more concise, but structure is logical and information-dense.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (payment, trial, header) and lack of output schema, the description covers critical contextual details: pricing, authentication method, default behavior, and sibling differentiation. It does not describe the return format, but the tool's purpose is clear enough for the AI to infer it returns a list of coins with ranking.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by stating default limit (5), maximum (50), and that symbols defaults to a top-coins set. This provides context beyond the schema and helps the AI understand parameter behavior.

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 clearly states the tool scans the market for coins at a top (most overbought/sell) and ranks them. It specifically distinguishes from sibling tools like scan_bottoms by its focus on tops, and uses precise verb+resource+scope: 'Scan the market and return coins currently at a top.'

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?

The description provides explicit usage guidance: no account/signup needed, how to handle the 402 challenge with a PAYMENT-SIGNATURE header, and a best cold start hint for symbol selection. It also contrasts with the free pitch tool for counting. This clearly helps the AI decide when to use this tool over alternatives.

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