get_market_movers

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, which the description does not contradict. The description adds behavioral traits: payment via x402 micropayment on specific chains, detection of rapid price movements and unusual volume. No annotation contradiction.

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 verbose, including payment details and a docs link that are not strictly about tool behavior. While informative, it could be more front-loaded and eliminate non-essential info to improve conciseness.

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 no parameters, annotations for read-only and open world, and presence of an output schema, the description fairly covers what the tool does and its value. It lacks details on output format or pagination, but overall is complete.

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 zero parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter meaning. Baseline 4 is appropriate since schema coverage is 100% and no params exist.

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 gets Korean market movers, including specific metrics (price surges/crashes >1%, volume spikes, top 20 tokens by volume on Upbit). This differentiates it from sibling tools like get_kr_prices or get_kr_sentiment.

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 context for use: 'Korean retail activity often leads global price movements — early signal for traders.' It implies when to use but does not explicitly exclude scenarios or compare to siblings.

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