get_crypto_fear_greed_index

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains the scale and indicates historical data and trend analysis are included, but lacks details on data freshness, authentication, or rate limits, which are important for a tool accessing an external API.

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 with two sentences. The first defines the tool, the second provides usage context and capabilities. It is efficiently worded, though could benefit from slight restructuring to separate purpose from usage guidance.

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?

Given the simple input (one parameter) and no output schema, the description should fully cover usage. It explains the output but leaves the input parameter entirely undocumented, making the tool incomplete for an agent to invoke correctly without additional knowledge.

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 input schema has a single required parameter 'input_data' with no defined properties and 0% schema coverage. The description does not explain what this parameter expects, leaving the agent without guidance on how to structure the input, thus failing to add meaning beyond the minimal schema.

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 retrieves the Crypto Fear & Greed Index from Alternative.me on a 0-100 scale, and distinguishes it from the sibling get_cnn_fear_greed_index by specifying the source. It provides specific verb and resource, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 lists use cases such as crypto market sentiment, investor psychology, and timing buy/sell decisions, giving clear context for when to invoke. However, it does not specify when not to use or mention alternative tools.

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