获取恐惧贪婪指数

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose that this is a read-only fetch and that the value lies on a 0-100 scale. It omits the data source, freshness/cache behavior, and return shape beyond the range, so behavioral transparency is only partial.

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?

A single short sentence that is front-loaded with the key facts and contains no redundant wording. Given the absence of parameters, this is appropriately concise.

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 zero-argument tool, the description is nearly adequate, but with no output schema it leaves ambiguity about whether the result is a bare number or a structured payload with sentiment labels and timestamps. This is a small but real completeness 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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds useful domain context by specifying the cryptocurrency market and the 0-100 scale, which is all that is needed here.

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?

States a specific verb (获取) and resource (加密货币市场恐惧贪婪指数) plus the 0-100 range, so the purpose is immediately clear. However, it does not name or distinguish itself from related crypto sentiment tools such as crypto_sentiment_metrics, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

No when-to-use guidance or alternatives are mentioned. The description simply says what the tool fetches and gives no signal about when to prefer it over other sentiment or crypto market tools.

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