get_crypto_forecast

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the calibrated nature ('honest 80% prediction interval'), the cost, and that directional bias is supporting context. It could mention rate limits or authentication, but for a forecast tool, it is sufficiently transparent about behavior.

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?

Every sentence is informative and no wasted words. The description is front-loaded with the key output type and then expands on specifics. It earns its space efficiently.

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?

With no output schema, the description adequately describes return values (range_80, point return, upside probability) and the empirical coverage. It omits error conditions or authentication details, but for a simple read-like tool with optional parameters, it is largely 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 covers both parameters 100%. Description adds value beyond schema by explaining the cost, the calibrated interval, and that affiliate_id earns commission without extra cost. This enriches the meaning of the parameters for the agent.

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 uses specific verbs and resources: 'Conformally-calibrated price forecast' and lists exact outputs (80% prediction interval, point return, upside probability). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_crypto_signals and get_crypto_decision by emphasizing the calibrated range and cost.

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?

Provides clear context: directional bias is supporting but the calibrated range is the validated product, and costs $0.05 USDC. While it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives, it implies suitability for probabilistic price forecasting versus other signal or decision tools.

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