Sentiment-vs-price divergence verdict

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, etc.), the description discloses cost ($0.09 USDC per call, settles only on success), latency (10–180 s), return fields (verdict, sentiment, stance, divergence, narrative, freshness), and a security warning to treat output as untrusted data. This is rich behavioral context that goes far beyond the structured annotations.

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 well-organized with clear sections (purpose, cost, latency, args, returns, disclaimer). Every sentence adds value—there is no filler or repetition. It is concise for the amount of information it conveys.

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 no output schema, the description lists all return fields, covers cost and latency, specifies the required input, and includes a risk disclaimer. For a single-parameter tool with good annotations, this is complete and self-contained.

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%, so the asset parameter is already well-documented. The description adds a few extra examples ('BTC', 'ETH', 'SOL') but no substantive meaning beyond what the schema provides. This is the baseline 3 for full schema coverage.

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: 'Live sentiment × price divergence verdict for one crypto asset, with confidence.' It uses a specific verb ('verdict') and resource ('sentiment × price divergence'), and distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on a single asset's divergence assessment, unlike a snapshot, track record, or screener.

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 clear context on what question it answers ('is the crowd ahead of, behind, or fighting the tape?') and positions itself as Vedetta's signature read. However, it does not explicitly mention when to avoid it or name alternative tools for different use cases, so it stops short of a 5.

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