get_crypto_preflight

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 usefully discloses the monetary cost ('Costs $0.05 USDC') and the components it checks (market-state, cooldown, freshness, model-context). However, it does not state whether the tool is read-only or has side effects, nor what happens on success or failure. The cost disclosure is valuable, but the lack of safety/mutation information prevents a higher score.

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 front-loads the action and context, then adds the cost. Every word earns its place—no redundancy or filler. It is appropriately sized for a tool with one parameter and a clear purpose.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does not explain what the tool returns or what the preflight result looks like. While the purpose is clear, an agent would not know whether the tool returns a boolean, a status object, or a list of checks. Additionally, there is no mention of side effects or required permissions. For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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 schema covers 100% of the parameter ('symbol') with a clear description and examples. The tool description adds no extra information about the parameter—it doesn't mention format, constraints, or relationships. Since schema coverage is complete, the baseline of 3 is appropriate, and the description does not need to compensate.

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's function: 'Run the market-state, cooldown, freshness, and model-context preflight step before creating a decision journal.' It uses a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('preflight step'), and the phrasing distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_crypto_signals or get_crypto_risk by positioning it as a prerequisite for decision journal creation.

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 explicitly says 'before creating a decision journal,' providing clear context for when the tool should be used. It implies this is a preliminary step and distinguishes it from other crypto analysis tools. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternative tools, so it misses the 'when-not' guidance present in high-scoring examples.

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