Tokens ranked by measured-caller weight

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the $0.02 USDC cost on Base and the deduplication rule that coordinated clusters count once, which goes beyond structured metadata.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the ranking logic and followed by window and cost details. It is generally efficient, though the malformed 'hours=1.48' notation slightly undermines clarity.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, ranking tie-breakers, window selection, and cost. It could mention the return format or data freshness, but overall it provides enough for correct invocation.

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%, and the parameter's description ('1-48, default 24') already documents the range. The description's phrase 'Window selectable with hours=1.48' is somewhat confusing and adds little beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb (ranked) and resource (Robinhood Chain tokens) with unique ranking criteria (measured accuracy weight, distinct voices, raw mentions). It distinguishes itself from generic mention or pulse tools by focusing on caller-weighted token momentum, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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?

Usage is implied by the ranking logic—use when you want tokens prioritized by caller accuracy—but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative comparison. An agent must infer the appropriate context from the description alone.

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