DYOE Top Movers ($0.01)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful operational context the annotations do not: the $0.01 USDC cost, the Base chain, and x402 payment mechanics — analogous to auth/rate-limit disclosure. It stops short of describing freshness, caching, or rate behavior.

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?

Extremely compact and front-loaded — the resource and scope come first, with cost and input requirements trailing. 'Input: (none)' is mildly redundant against the empty schema but earns its place by removing ambiguity for a paid call.

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 output schema, the description carries the burden of telling the agent what comes back, and it only loosely does so ('top gainers & losers'). It does not indicate how many entries, whether both lists are returned, or in what shape, which matters for a fixed-cost paid 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's explicit 'Input: (none)' reinforces the empty schema rather than leaving the agent to wonder if a hidden argument is expected. Nothing further is needed here.

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 states a concrete resource and scope: 24h top gainers and losers across the top 100 coins, which an agent can immediately match to a 'movers' request. It does not, however, distinguish itself from potentially overlapping siblings like dyoe_trending, dyoe_market, or dyoe_crypto.

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?

'For trading agents' names an audience rather than a usage condition, and no alternative tool or when-not-to-use case is given. The agent must infer that this is the right call for ranking-type queries.

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