get_crypto_decision

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 does add useful context: the operation costs $0.15 USDC and creates an auditable journal with a decision_id. However, it does not disclose the return format, side effects beyond creation, or how the decision_id is used later. It partially compensates for missing annotations but leaves significant gaps.

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 concise, two sentences, with the primary action front-loaded. The cost is clearly stated in the second sentence. However, the phrasing 'Create an auditable market-intelligence journal' is slightly convoluted and could be more direct, but overall it is efficient.

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?

Despite having only one parameter and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a paid tool. It does not explain what the agent receives in return (e.g., the decision itself, a record), how to use the decision_id for outcome review, or how this relates to sibling tools like audit_crypto_decision. The lack of return value description and tie-in to other tools makes it inadequate for effective use.

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%, so the only parameter 'symbol' is fully documented with examples. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, which is acceptable given the schema already explains the parameter. Baseline score of 3 applies.

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 'Create an auditable market-intelligence journal' which is a specific verb+resource, but it does not match the tool name 'get_crypto_decision' and does not clearly indicate that the tool returns a decision. The mention of 'decision_id' hints at decisions, but the primary action described is creation of a journal, leaving the actual purpose ambiguous and potentially misleading.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. It implies usage for creating an auditable journal for later review, but does not state exclusions or alternatives. Without reference to siblings like audit_crypto_decision or get_crypto_forecast, an agent cannot determine appropriate usage context.

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