kr-crypto-intelligence

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and adds valuable behavioral context: it discloses the update frequency (every 60 seconds), the types of data returned (premium %, reverse premiums, price gaps, market share), and additional features like warning flags and alerts. It does not mention rate limits or authentication needs, but covers key 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?

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded: it starts with the core action (scanning), specifies scope and exchanges, lists return data, and ends with update frequency and purpose. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 tool's complexity (scanning 180+ tokens with multiple data points) and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough. It outlines what the tool does, the data returned, update frequency, and purpose, without needing to detail return values since the output schema handles that.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to compensate for any parameter gaps, as there are none to document.

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's purpose: scanning Kimchi Premium for all tokens (180+) traded on both Upbit and Binance. It specifies the scope (ALL tokens, both exchanges) and distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_kimchi_premium' by emphasizing comprehensive scanning rather than a single premium value.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: for cross-exchange arbitrage analysis involving Upbit and Binance. It implies usage by stating it's 'essential for cross-exchange arbitrage analysis,' but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings.

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