Cvd

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false annotations, the description discloses important behavior: volumes are in base coin, the running sum order, the compact response design, and that unknown/delisted tickers raise an MCP error. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 dense but every sentence adds value: definition, computation, interpretation, volume units, return fields, error behavior, and a usage example. It is front-loaded and contains no 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?

The description covers the calculation, output fields, error case, valid ticker source, and an example invocation. An agent has enough to correctly select and call this tool even with an output schema and read-only annotations present.

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 does explain the ticker format ('ETH-USD') and provides a concrete example with trades_limit=500. However, trades_limit semantics are only implied through the name and example; the description does not explicitly state its meaning, default, or range.

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 defines the tool as computing Cumulative Volume Delta from the latest public trades, with a concrete formula and output fields. It is distinguishable from sibling tools by its focus on CVD, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with any sibling, so it falls short of a 5.

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 gives clear context: it is for analyzing net aggressive buying/selling from recent trades, and it explicitly directs the agent to call list_markets for valid tickers. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives like recent_trades or market_ta.

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