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. It discloses key behavioral traits: it's a read operation (implied by 'Get'), provides financial data, and explains the economic interpretation of results (positive/negative premium meaning). However, it doesn't mention rate limits, error handling, or data freshness, leaving some gaps in operational context.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. Subsequent sentences add valuable interpretation without waste. Each sentence earns its place: the second explains premium direction, the third ties it to market flows, and the fourth distinguishes from siblings. It's efficiently structured and appropriately sized.

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 (financial indicator), no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is largely complete. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, and how to interpret results. However, it could mention data sources or update frequency for full context. The output schema likely covers return values, so this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, so baseline is high. It implicitly confirms no inputs are required by focusing solely on output interpretation. No compensation is needed, and it avoids redundancy, earning a 4 for appropriate handling.

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 USDT and USDC premium on Korean exchanges vs official USD/KRW rate.' It specifies the exact resources (USDT, USDC), the comparison (Korean exchanges vs official rate), and distinguishes it from sibling 'get_kimchi_premium' by noting it's 'separate from Kimchi Premium.' This is specific, avoids tautology, and differentiates from alternatives.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: as 'a key indicator of Korean market fund flow direction.' It distinguishes from sibling 'get_kimchi_premium' by noting it's 'separate from Kimchi Premium,' providing clear alternatives. The context of positive/negative premium interpretation further guides usage in analyzing capital flow direction, making it highly actionable.

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