analyst_top_tokens

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden and does so substantively: it reveals the 90-day window, the ≥3 resolved-signal filter, the total vs. resolved distinction, and the statistical rationale for the threshold. It is truncated mid-sentence and does not cover behavior when analystId is omitted or whether results are sorted other than implied by 'top by win rate,' so it is not fully exhaustive.

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 front-loads the core purpose and includes useful analyst mappings, but it is wordy and repetitive: 'last 90 days' appears twice, 'single analyst' is restated, and the 'MCP-compatible' tag adds little. The description also appears truncated, which weakens the overall structure.

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 only one parameter and no output schema, so the description bears the burden of explaining return values. It begins to do so with 'token (symbol string), total (all signals in window including pending), resolved (signals with a win/loss ou', but the sentence is cut off and no win-rate field name or complete field list is given. The analyst guidance is strong, but the output documentation is incomplete.

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?

The schema already documents analystId at 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds genuine value by providing human-readable names and focus areas for each enum value, such as 'chain_hawk (ChainHawk, BTC & macro on-chain).' This helps the agent choose among otherwise opaque slugs, though the schema lists the parameter as not required while the description strongly implies it should be supplied, creating mild ambiguity.

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 action and resource: 'Returns the top 5 tokens (by win rate) attributed to a single analyst over the last 90 days.' It includes a concrete inclusion rule (≥3 resolved signals), which makes the tool's purpose easy to grasp. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like analysts_top or analysts_signals, leaving some differentiation to the reader.

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 concrete invocation guidance by instructing 'Use ?analystId=' and enumerating all valid analyst slugs with their specialties, which helps the agent select the right analyst. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over related siblings or when not to use it, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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