DYOE Crypto Market ($0.01)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-annotation context: the call is paid ($0.01 USDC on Base via x402) and takes no input, which an agent must know before invoking.

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?

One tight sentence front-loads the purpose, then the cost. No filler, and every clause carries information the agent needs.

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?

With no parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering the read-only/open-world profile, the description supplies what remains: scope of metrics and the payment requirement. Return format is unspecified, but that is a minor gap for a zero-arg pricing-gated call.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description reinforces this with 'Input: (none)', leaving no ambiguity about what to pass.

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?

States a specific resource (global crypto market overview) and enumerates the exact metrics returned: total market cap, 24h change, BTC/ETH dominance. That field-level detail implicitly separates it from siblings like dyoe_movers or dyoe_trending, but no sibling is named explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied by the data it returns — an agent can infer 'use this for aggregate market stats' — but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of when to prefer dyoe_crypto or dyoe_fx instead, and no stated prerequisites.

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