get_pi_cycle_top

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains the indicator's logic and historical timing (peak within ~3 days), but lacks critical behavioral details: whether it returns current status or historical data, data sources, update frequency, or error conditions. This is inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently explains the indicator's methodology and historical context. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids redundancy, though it could be slightly more concise by trimming 'historically typically'.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It explains the indicator's logic but omits essential context: what the tool returns (e.g., current crossover status, timestamps, confidence scores), data recency, or how to interpret results. For a financial indicator tool, this leaves significant gaps.

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, earning a baseline score of 4 for not adding unnecessary information beyond the empty schema.

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 what the tool does: it uses the Pi Cycle Top indicator with specific moving averages (111DMA and 2x350DMA) to identify Bitcoin market tops. It specifies the resource (Bitcoin market tops) and mechanism (moving average crossovers), though it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like 'get_cycle_indicators' or 'get_btc_trend'.

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 the indicator's historical significance but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'get_cycle_indicators' or 'get_fear_greed_index' for market analysis.

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