get_global_vs_korea_divergence

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

Discloses 60s cache, pricing ($0.05), payment method (x402), and return fields (prices, divergence, context_signals, ai_interpretation). No contradiction with annotations. Provides significant value beyond 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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then structured with bullet points and emojis. Some extra info (pricing, docs) could be considered clutter but still clear and scannable.

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?

Covers output structure, cache, pricing, and payment. Output schema exists. Missing error handling or rate limits, but overall sufficient for agent invocation given annotations and 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with a detailed description of symbol parameter listing 25 cryptos. The description adds no further parameter meaning beyond '25 supported symbols'. Baseline 3 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 it computes the premium between CoinGecko global and Upbit Korean prices, with AI interpretation. It specifies 'Light tier' distinguishing it from the deep variant sibling. Verb and resource are specific.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this vs the deep version or other siblings. 'Light tier' implies a choice but no criteria or exclusions are provided.

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