rating_filter

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

With no annotations provided, the description adequately discloses the return type ('list[dict]' or an error envelope) and the filtering behavior. However, it does not mention any side effects, rate limits, permissions, or whether the operation is read-only, which are important for safe invocation.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and uses a clear structured format (Args section) for parameters. It is reasonably concise, though the parameter list could be slightly more compact without losing clarity.

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 output schema existence and the tool's straightforward nature, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, parameters, return type, and error handling. It could improve by specifying that it targets cryptocurrency markets, but the exchange examples imply this 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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the Args section thoroughly explains all four parameters: exchange (with example values), timeframe (list of options), rating (with rating scale), and limit (max 50). It adds substantial meaning beyond the schema's defaults and types.

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 explicitly states 'Filter coins by Bollinger Band rating,' which is a specific verb-resource pair. It clearly differentiates from siblings like 'bollinger_scan' by focusing on rating-based filtering rather than pattern scanning.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'bollinger_scan' or 'coin_analysis.' It lacks explicit context about prerequisites or ideal use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from parameter details alone.

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