Market pulse (today's dominant narrative)

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, open-world), and the description adds substantial context beyond them: $0.09 USDC per call via x402 on Base, settlement only on success, 10–180 s latency, and an explicit prompt-injection warning to treat output as untrusted data. Those are exactly the operational facts a calling agent needs and none are derivable from the 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?

One tight paragraph, front-loaded with the purpose, then price, settlement, latency and a safety caveat — each sentence carries a distinct fact and none is padding. No structural waste for a no-parameter tool.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description supplies enough to invoke correctly: cost, payment rail, latency, and the shape of the return (narrative plus mood) plus a handling caveat. A brief note on response format or freshness window would close the remaining gap.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly signals that the call is parameterless by describing a fixed, no-argument read.

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?

States a specific resource — "today's dominant crypto narrative and market mood" — with the "pulse read" framing that implies a current, aggregate snapshot. It is clear what the tool returns, but it never differentiates itself from close siblings like vedetta_narrative, vedetta_theme or vedetta_snapshot, which an agent must choose between.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance and no exclusions; it never says whether to pick this over vedetta_narrative, vedetta_theme or vedetta_house-view. Cost and latency are stated, which helps the agent budget, but that is economics, not usage routing.

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