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 explains what the tool calculates (real-time price difference) and provides useful context about what a positive premium means. However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like rate limits, data freshness guarantees, error conditions, or authentication requirements. The description adds value but leaves significant behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized. The first sentence states the core purpose, followed by contextual information about South Korea's trading volume and premium interpretation. The Args section is clearly separated. While every sentence earns its place, the South Korea ranking sentence, while informative, isn't strictly necessary for tool selection and could be considered slightly extraneous.

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 moderate complexity (single parameter, calculation-based), no annotations, but with an output schema present, the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does, provides parameter semantics, and establishes context. The output schema will handle return values, so the description doesn't need to explain those. However, it could benefit from more behavioral transparency details given the lack of annotations.

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 description adds substantial meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'symbol' represents a 'Crypto symbol' and provides concrete examples (BTC, ETH, XRP, SOL, DOGE). This clarifies the parameter's purpose and format, which the schema alone (with just type and default) doesn't provide. For a single parameter with no schema descriptions, this is excellent compensation.

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: 'Get real-time Kimchi Premium — the price difference between Korean exchanges (Upbit) and global exchanges (Binance).' It specifies the exact calculation (price difference), identifies the specific exchanges involved (Upbit vs. Binance), and distinguishes it from siblings like get_fx_rate or get_stablecoin_premium by focusing on this particular crypto arbitrage metric.

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 about when to use this tool by explaining what Kimchi Premium represents and when it's positive. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among sibling tools (e.g., when to use get_kr_prices instead). The context about South Korea's trading volume ranking helps establish relevance but doesn't provide explicit usage boundaries.

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