Liquidez cripto

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile and external-dependency nature are covered structurally. The description only reinforces that it pulls from third-party providers; it discloses nothing about data freshness, caching, rate limits, or failure behavior, so it adds little beyond the annotations.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the primary metric set and names each data provider. No filler, though it reads as a raw content list rather than a directed instruction.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of conveying return values, and listing the metric families partially does so. However, it gives no sense of response structure, time window, or granularity, leaving the agent to guess at the shape of the data.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. Nothing in the description misrepresents the (empty) input surface.

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 enumerates the concrete data the tool surfaces — total market cap, volume, dominance (CoinGecko), stablecoin supply and its variation (DefiLlama), and the fear & greed index (alternative.me) — so an agent can tell what resource it returns. It is clear but does not differentiate itself from siblings such as get_liquidity_overview or get_macro_liquidity_history.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool, when to prefer an alternative, or what prerequisites exist. With 13 sibling tools covering overlapping liquidity/flow concepts, the absence of any routing guidance is a real gap.

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