get_market_read

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

Annotations already set readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description does not need to repeat those. It adds context about the cost ($0.10 via x402) and that it is AI-powered. No contradiction or missing behavioral details.

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 two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence lists inputs, the second lists outputs. Every piece of information earns its place.

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?

For a tool with no parameters and an existing output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does, what data it uses, and what it returns. The mention of price adds relevant context.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is no need for parameter descriptions. The description adds value by explaining the output (signal, confidence, summary, raw data) beyond the schema.

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 identifies the tool as 'AI-powered Korean crypto market analysis,' listing specific data points it combines (Kimchi Premium, stablecoin premium, etc.) and outputs (signal, confidence, summary, raw data). This distinguishes it clearly from sibling tools like get_kimchi_premium or get_fx_rate.

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 indicates it is a comprehensive analysis tool for Korean crypto markets and mentions a price, implying it's a premium service. While it does not explicitly say when to use it versus siblings, the list of combined data points suggests it is best for an aggregated view rather than individual metrics.

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