get_exchange_alerts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations: detection types, polling frequency (60 seconds), and payment integration (x402 micropayment). No contradictions. The description enriches the tool's behavior understanding.

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 fairly concise given the amount of information conveyed. It is well-structured with key purpose first, then technical details, then payment info. Minor redundancy (e.g., 'Get Korean exchange alerts' in the first line and later details), but overall efficient.

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?

For a tool with no parameters and an output schema (presumed to document return details), the description covers all necessary context: what alerts are detected, how detection works (comparison every 60 seconds), and practical usage (payment, docs). It fully equips an agent to decide when and how to call the tool.

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 zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter details. It provides context for what the tool returns (alert types) and operational details (payment, docs). Baseline 4 is appropriate.

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 retrieves Korean exchange alerts including new listings, delistings, investment warnings, and caution flags. It specifies the types of alerts detected (INVESTMENT_WARNING, PRICE_FLUCTUATIONS, etc.) and how detections work (comparing market lists every 60 seconds). This is specific and distinct from sibling tools, which focus on prices, news, or divergence.

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 explicitly states the tool is critical for risk management and early listing detection, indicating when to use it. It does not provide explicit exclusions or alternatives, but the context of sibling tools (prices, news, etc.) naturally suggests this is the go-to for alerts. Slightly lacking in when-not-to-use guidance.

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