crypto_momentum

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

Beyond readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description explains the score range (-100 to +100) and that recent action is weighted more heavily. This adds behavioral nuance, though it could mention error handling for invalid coins.

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 brief, with a clear opening sentence defining the tool, followed by two illustrative examples. No extraneous content; every sentence contributes value.

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 the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, output schema present), the description covers the core behavior, scoring methodology, and common use cases. The output schema handles return values, so missing details like pagination or errors are acceptable.

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 describes the 'coin' parameter as a symbol/name/id. The description's examples (e.g., 'coin=''SOL''') reinforce this but do not add significant new semantic meaning. With schema description coverage stated as 0%, the description partially compensates but could be more detailed on input variations.

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 'Score a coin's price momentum across 24h, 7d and 30d into one signal,' specifying a verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on a composite momentum score, unlike crypto_trending (lists trending coins) or crypto_get_quote (current price).

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?

Examples like 'Does solana have momentum?' and 'Is bitcoin trending up or down?' provide clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use, but the context is sufficient for typical queries.

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