Crypto narrative indices (AI, RWA, DePIN, meme, L1, L2, DeFi, quantum)

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses the return structure: eight equal-weight baskets, rebasing to 100 on 2025-01-01, multiple return windows, BTC comparison, member lists, and conditional omission of daily points. This gives the agent substantial behavioral context needed to set expectations and invoke include_points correctly.

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 front-loaded with the invocation trigger and follows with the return composition and parameter behavior. Both sentences carry necessary information with no filler.

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?

For a read-only tool with one optional boolean, no output schema, and full schema coverage, the description provides enough detail about when to call it, what the indices represent, what data is returned, and how include_points affects output. Nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so include_points is already documented, but the description adds useful default semantics: daily points are omitted unless include_points is true. That goes beyond the schema's wording and clarifies actual call behavior.

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 specific resource: eight equal-weight fixed-basket crypto narrative indices, and enumerates the covered themes. It distinguishes this from generic market or single-theme tools by describing narrative/sector rotation and theme-index output, not raw exposure or broad market data.

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?

It gives explicit user-intent triggers such as asking which crypto narrative is leading, rotation between named narratives, or requesting a theme index. It does not name when-not-to-use cases or explicitly route to alternatives like get_market_indices or get_quantum_exposure, so it falls short of full 5-level guidance.

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