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 of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behavioral traits: the types of alerts detected (e.g., INVESTMENT_WARNING, PRICE_FLUCTUATIONS), the method for detecting new listings/delistings ('comparing market list changes every 60 seconds'), and the tool's purpose ('risk management and early listing detection'). It does not mention rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling, but covers core functionality well.

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, with the first sentence stating the core purpose and the second providing detailed detection specifics. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or wasted text.

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 (alerts with multiple detection types and a 60-second comparison method), no annotations, 0 parameters, and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough. It explains what the tool does, what it detects, how it works for listings/delistings, and its critical use cases, without needing to detail return values due to the output schema.

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 adds no parameter information, which is appropriate given the lack of parameters, and does not detract from the schema's completeness.

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 with specific verbs ('Get', 'Detects') and resources ('Korean exchange alerts', 'new listings', 'delistings', 'investment warnings', 'caution flags'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on alerts rather than pricing data, arbitrage, or market health checks.

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 ('Critical for risk management and early listing detection'), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools. The implied usage is strong but lacks explicit exclusions.

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