crypto_screener

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 explains the filtering logic for each parameter but does not describe the output format, whether the operation is read-only, data freshness, or any potential side effects. It fails to explicitly state that it returns matching pairs or that it only reads data.

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 and well-structured, starting with a clear one-sentence summary followed by a bulleted Args list. Every line adds value, and the formatting makes it easy to scan. No redundant or filler content.

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?

The description covers all six parameters and the core action, which is sufficient for basic invocation. An output schema exists, so return-value details are not required. However, it lacks information on edge cases (e.g., behavior when no pairs match) and does not mention the maximum allowed limit, leaving some minor gaps for a tool of this complexity.

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 0% description coverage, but the description compensates thoroughly by explaining each parameter's meaning, including examples (USDT, USDC, BTC), acceptable values for sort_by, and the practical impact of min_volume_usd. This goes far beyond the schema field names.

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: screening Binance spot pairs based on 24h price and volume. It uses a specific verb ('Screen') and identifies the resource (Binance spot pairs). However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like crypto_top_movers or technical_scan, so it does not fully earn a 5.

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 parameter-level guidance (e.g., raising min_volume_usd filters illiquid pairs) but does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as stock_screener or technical_scan. There is no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' context.

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