get_fear_greed

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It mentions 'historical series + BCA interpretation,' giving some behavioral context, but does not disclose specifics such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or the exact nature of the interpretation. More details would improve transparency.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the tool's identity and key features. No unnecessary words.

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 should explain return values more thoroughly. 'Historical series + BCA interpretation' is vague; it does not specify data fields, format, or pagination. For a simple tool with one param, it is minimally adequate but lacks completeness.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% (parameter 'days' described as 'Lookback days.'). The description adds 'historical series' but does not significantly enhance the parameter meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 that the tool provides the Crypto Fear & Greed Index from Alternative.me, including historical series and BCA interpretation. It uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('Fear & Greed Index'), and is distinct from sibling tools like get_sentiment or get_history_sentiment.

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 implies usage for retrieving historical fear and greed data, but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.

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