check_market

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses cost asymmetry ($0.005 for prices/TVL/stablecoins/FX vs $0.05 for any yields metric, attributed to live DeFiLlama data), which is real value-add. Beyond pricing it says nothing about rate limits, failure/error behavior, or result shape, so a mutation-and-read mix of behaviors stays undisclosed.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and the primary payload, then a dense but necessary enumeration of twelve metrics; the closing sentence delivers the parameter convention and pricing without padding. It is long, but for a twelve-metric dispatch tool nearly every clause earns its place.

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?

For a nine-parameter, no-output-schema tool the description covers metric selection, the metric-to-parameter convention, and pricing. It does not mention pagination/limit behavior or the shape of returned rows, but with no output schema that omission is a minor gap rather than a blocker.

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 description coverage is 100% and each parameter's description already scopes it to a metric ('fx_rate only', 'protocol_tvl only', etc.), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's metric-to-parameter mapping largely restates that structured data, yielding the baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb ('Check') and resource (crypto/DeFi/FX market data point) and enumerates every supported metric with its parameter name, so the agent knows exactly what class of data this returns. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling check_chain, which plausibly overlaps on chain-level TVL, leaving one ambiguity unresolved.

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 final sentence gives invocation guidance ('Give `metric` and whichever of coins/protocol/chain/symbol/pool/base/limit/min_tvl that metric needs'), which tells the agent how to drive the tool but not when to prefer it over check_chain or the other siblings. No when-not conditions or alternatives are named, so usage is implied rather than stated.

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