Top Movers ($0.01)

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses a cost of $0.01 USDC on Base, which is a behavioral trait. However, it does not mention whether the tool is read-only, any rate limits, or what happens on error.

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 a single sentence with an additional tagline about cost. It is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose, but could be slightly more structured.

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 output schema, the description does not specify the format of the returned data (e.g., array of objects with fields like name, symbol, change percentage). It only states costs and target users. For a simple list tool, it is adequate but leaves some context missing.

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 zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%. With no parameters, the description cannot add parameter meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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 explicitly states 'Top gainers & losers (24h) across the top 100 coins', which clearly identifies the tool's purpose as listing the best and worst performing coins over a 24-hour period. It distinguishes from siblings like crypto_price (single price) and crypto_trending (trending coins).

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 mentions 'for trading agents', implying use in trading contexts, but does not explicitly specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like crypto_market or crypto_price. No when-not-to-use or exclusions are provided.

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