coin_analysis

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which covers the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavior context: it is the canonical single-symbol readout, includes detailed error handling for symbol-exchange mismatches, and clarifies the return type (all indicators and metrics). It doesn't mention rate limits or output format specifics, but for a read-only analysis tool, this is sufficient.

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?

Although the description is moderately long, it is well-structured with an intro, canonical note, alternatives, example, Args section, and Returns. Every sentence serves a purpose—no fluff—and the first sentence immediately states the tool's function. The format is front-loaded and easy to scan.

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?

The tool has 3 parameters, no enums, and no output schema, so the description carries significant weight. It covers all parameter formats, an example, error handling, and a return summary. However, the return description ('Detailed analysis with all indicators and metrics') is vague; including a hint about what metrics are returned would push this to a 5.

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 0%, so the description fully compensates. It explains symbol with concrete examples (BTCUSDT, COMI, THYAO, etc.), enumerates exchange values for both crypto and stocks, and lists all valid timeframes. This goes far beyond the bare schema (type string) and gives agents everything needed to fill parameters correctly.

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 'Get detailed analysis for a specific asset on specified exchange and timeframe' with a specific verb and resource. It explicitly distinguishes from siblings by noting this is the canonical single-symbol readout and there is no 'get_technical_analysis' or 'get_technical_summary' tool, making purpose unambiguous.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives: use multi_timeframe_analysis for trend alignment across timeframes and combined_analysis when news sentiment is needed. It also gives practical error handling advice (the error's listed_on field names exchanges) and an example invocation.

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