Narrative read

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses cost ($0.09 USDC via x402 on Base), settlement behavior (only on success), latency range (10–180 s), and a security instruction to treat responses as untrusted data. These are operationally important traits that an agent could not infer from the annotations alone.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then adds cost, latency, settlement, disclaimer, and security guidance in compact sentences. Every sentence contributes operational or safety-relevant information without padding.

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 read-only research tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, cost, latency, settlement, and response trust handling. It describes the kind of content returned but does not detail the response structure, which leaves a minor gap for an agent planning how to consume the output.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the only parameter is already fully documented as a ticker with min/max length. The description confirms the single-asset scope but adds no new syntax, format, or constraint details beyond the 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 states a specific verb and resource: a dominant narrative read for one asset, covering crowd sentiment, pricing, and whether the narrative is fading or building. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like vedetta_social, vedetta_theme, or vedetta_consensus, so it is clear but not sibling-differentiated.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison to alternatives. The phrase 'for one asset' implies single-asset scope, but the description does not say when an agent should choose this over vedetta_social, vedetta_theme, or vedetta_consensus.

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