kr-crypto-intelligence

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses behavioral traits such as the tool's focus on Korean markets, specific thresholds (1-minute, >1%), and data sources (Upbit). However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, response format, or potential data freshness issues, which are important for a market data tool.

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 core functionality stated first. The second sentence elaborates on detection specifics, and the third provides market context. While concise, the third sentence could be considered slightly extraneous for pure tool selection, though it adds useful trader context.

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 (market data with specific criteria), no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is mostly complete. It explains what the tool returns (market movers based on price/volume criteria) and the context (Korean markets, Upbit). However, it could benefit from more detail on output structure or limitations, though the output schema mitigates this gap.

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 no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not mention parameters, which is appropriate. A baseline of 4 is applied as it efficiently handles the lack of parameters without redundancy.

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 explicitly states the tool's function: 'Get Korean market movers' with specific details about what constitutes a 'mover' (1-minute price surges/crashes >1%, volume spikes, top 20 tokens by trading volume on Upbit). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_kr_prices (general prices) or get_kimchi_premium (premium metrics) by focusing on rapid movements and volume activity.

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: for detecting rapid price movements and unusual volume activity in Korean crypto markets, with an implied use case for traders seeking early signals. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings (e.g., vs. get_market_read for broader market data).

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