get_crypto_decision

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses a monetary cost ($0.15 USDC) and implies a creation side effect. It does not explicitly state idempotency or side effects beyond journal entry creation, but the cost disclosure adds significant 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 four concise sentences, each adding distinct value: purpose, return fields, follow-up action, and cost. No wasted words, effectively front-loaded.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, behaviors (cost, creation), and a usage hint. It lacks explanation of 'Kronos context' and does not differentiate explicitly from siblings, but overall it is reasonably complete.

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 coverage is 100%, providing basic parameter info. The description adds value by explaining the affiliate_id's commission mechanism ('no extra cost to you'). This extra semantic detail justifies a score above baseline.

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 creates a market-intelligence journal entry and lists the return fields. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_crypto_signals or get_crypto_risk by focusing on creating an entry with a decision ID for later auditing.

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 instructs to call audit_trade_decision after the evaluation window, providing some guidance on follow-up. However, it lacks explicit direction on when to use this tool vs siblings like check_trade_preflight or get_crypto_signals.

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