crypto_analyze

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds detail on verdict scale (RISK-ON → AVOID), gauge, reasoning, and blending of momentum, trend, and market tide. No contradictions.

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?

Concise three-paragraph structure with clear main purpose, usage guidance, and examples. No extraneous text. Information is front-loaded.

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 output schema exists, description adequately covers return format (verdict, gauge, reasoning) and input semantics. Complements annotations and schema without redundancy.

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 descriptions for both parameters are complete, covering format and examples. The tool description does not add new parameter info, but examples demonstrate usage. With good schema descriptions, minimal additional value from description.

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?

Description clearly states it runs a full analysis and returns a scored verdict. Identifies the resource (coin) and verb (analyze). Distinguishes from siblings by calling itself the primary tool for 'should I look at X?' questions.

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?

Explicitly advises to prefer this tool for 'should I look at X?' questions. Provides example queries mapping to parameter. Does not explicitly mention when not to use siblings, but the primary tool designation implies alternatives exist.

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