rating_filter

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds useful behavior about the return type (list[dict]) and the error envelope on failure, which goes beyond annotations. However, it does not elaborate on what the dicts contain or any further behavioral details, so a mid-range score is appropriate.

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 concise and well-structured, using an Args section to list parameters and a separate line for the return and error envelope. Every sentence is informative and there is no wasted text, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 the tool's simplicity (4 params, no required fields, no enums), the description covers all necessary aspects: it explains each parameter, the return type, and the error format. Even though an output schema exists, the description's note about list[dict] and the error envelope is sufficient for the agent to understand expected outcomes.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: exchange with examples, timeframe with allowed values, rating with the BB scale, and limit with a max. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema, making it easy to select correct argument values.

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 the tool filters coins by Bollinger Band rating, specifying the verb ('Filter'), resource ('coins'), and scope ('by rating'). However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like bollinger_scan, which likely also operate on Bollinger Bands, 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only explains the arguments and return behavior, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the name and description. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are mentioned.

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