get_fear_greed_index

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the 0-100 scale interpretation and historical data scope, but doesn't mention rate limits, data freshness, source reliability, or error conditions. The behavioral disclosure is adequate but lacks operational details.

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?

Single sentence efficiently conveys purpose, scale interpretation, data scope, and use context. Every element earns its place with zero redundant information. The structure is front-loaded with the core function.

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 zero-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good context about what data is returned (current index, 7-day history, interpretation). However, it doesn't specify the exact return format (e.g., JSON structure) or whether the interpretation is textual or categorical.

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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately focuses on what the tool returns rather than inputs. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools.

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 specific action ('Get'), resource ('Crypto Fear & Greed Index'), and scope ('with 7-day history and investment interpretation'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_crypto_price or get_global_crypto_market by focusing on this specific sentiment index rather than price or market data.

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 implies usage context by mentioning 'investment interpretation' and the 0-100 scale with emotional extremes, suggesting this tool is for market sentiment analysis. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like get_top_movers for volatility or get_global_crypto_market for broader metrics.

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