volume_breakout_scanner

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

The annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, destructiveHint) already establish the tool as a safe, read-only scanner. The description adds valuable context about return behavior: the empty list means 'no matches today', error envelopes for total upstream failure, and explicit treatment of rate-limit cliffs. This goes beyond the annotations and provides meaningful behavioral disclosure.

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 logically structured: a one-line summary, parameter explanations, and a return-value note. It is concise without being truncated, but the parameters section slightly duplicates schema defaults (e.g., default 2.0) which is not strictly necessary. Still, it remains efficient 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 description covers the tool's purpose, all parameters, output format, and error handling. Given the 5 parameters, zero required fields, and the presence of an output schema (which likely documents return fields), the description is sufficiently complete. It could add a note about crypto-only applicability, but that is a minor gap.

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 carries the full burden of explaining parameters. It provides detailed semantics for every parameter: exchange examples (KUCOIN, BINANCE), timeframe options, clear definitions for volume_multiplier ('How many times'), price_change_min ('Minimum price change percentage'), and a max constraint for limit. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Detect coins with volume breakout + price breakout.' It is clear and unambiguous, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like smart_volume_scanner or volume_confirmation_analysis, which may overlap in purpose.

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 does not mention scenarios like 'use for screening coins' or explicitly exclude other scanners. The usage context is only implied through the parameter descriptions, but no explicit recommendations or exclusions are present.

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