get_cycle_indicators

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It describes the output fields but doesn't disclose critical traits like whether this is a read-only operation, data freshness, rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. The description adds some context about included indicators but lacks operational transparency.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: first stating the core function and output fields, second elaborating on scope. Every phrase adds value without redundancy. It could be slightly more front-loaded by leading with 'comprehensive analysis' but remains highly 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?

Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (indicators with specific fields and examples). However, as a data-fetching tool with no annotations, it should ideally mention behavioral aspects like data sources or update frequency to be fully complete for agent use.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on output content. This meets the baseline expectation for parameterless tools.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get crypto market cycle top indicators' with specific fields listed. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on comprehensive market cycle analysis rather than individual indicators like 'get_pi_cycle_top' or 'get_puell_multiple'. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_cycles' which might overlap.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'comprehensive market cycle analysis' but doesn't specify scenarios where this aggregated view is preferred over individual indicator tools like 'get_pi_cycle_top' or broader tools like 'get_cycles'. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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