get_kr_sentiment

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds valuable context: 1-hour cache, returns sentiment label, score, English report, exchange signals, news context. No contradictions with 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?

The description is somewhat lengthy with payment details and docs URL included. While clear and front-loaded, it could be more concise by separating business details from core functionality.

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 (combining multiple data sources) and presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and returns. The cache mention is helpful.

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?

There are no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to explain params. Baseline for zero parameters is 4.

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 analyzes Korean crypto market sentiment in English, combining exchange intelligence and Korean news. It distinguishes from siblings like get_kr_news_kpop and get_kimchi_premium by focusing on sentiment analysis.

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 implies usage context (Korean market real-time insights) but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives or exclude other tools. No contrast with siblings is provided.

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