volume_breakout_scanner

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

Without annotations, the description fully discloses return formats, error handling, and the meaning of an empty list. It addresses potential edge cases (rate-limit cliffs surface explicitly), providing good transparency beyond basic parameter definitions.

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 well-structured with separate sections for arguments and return behavior. It is concise but includes all necessary details without redundancy.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown), the description adequately covers return types and error cases. However, it could benefit from a usage example or explicit notes on prerequisites like API keys, though not critical for functionality.

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% description coverage, but the description compensates fully by explaining each parameter's purpose, acceptable values (e.g., exchange list, timeframe options), and defaults. This adds substantial meaning beyond the schema's type and default fields.

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 detects coins with volume breakout and price breakout. It specifies key parameters like exchange, timeframe, and thresholds, but does not directly contrast with sibling scanners such as smart_volume_scanner or bollinger_scan, which may have overlapping capabilities.

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 explains return behavior (empty list means no matches, error envelope for upstream failures) but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No when-not-to-use advice is provided.

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