get_fear_greed_index

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'real-time and historical data' and an 'easy-to-use API,' but fails to specify critical details such as data freshness, rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or whether the tool performs any computations. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves operationally.

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 two sentences long and avoids excessive fluff, but it includes marketing language like 'powerful tool' and 'easy-to-use API' that don't add functional value. It could be more front-loaded with core functionality (e.g., 'Retrieves the Fear and Greed Index for cryptocurrency markets') to improve clarity without sacrificing brevity.

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 complexity (a market sentiment indicator with no parameters) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., a numeric score, timestamped data, or metadata), how to interpret the index, or any limitations (e.g., data sources, update frequency). This makes it inadequate for an agent to use the tool effectively without additional context.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, which is efficient and avoids redundancy. A baseline of 4 is applied since the schema fully covers the lack of parameters, and the description doesn't add unnecessary information.

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 states the tool provides 'Fear and Greed Index' data for analyzing market sentiment, which gives a general purpose. However, it's vague about what the tool actually returns (e.g., a numerical index, chart data, or sentiment breakdown) and doesn't clearly distinguish it from sibling tools like 'get_btc_trend' or 'get_cycle_indicators' that also provide market analysis indicators.

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 mentions using the index for 'crypto investment decisions' and 'stay ahead of market trends,' which implies a context of market analysis. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_altcoin_season_index' or 'get_bitcoin_dominance,' nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions for its use.

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