Trend read

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

Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, non-destructive, non-idempotent behavior; the description adds exactly the context they cannot carry: $0.09 USDC per call via x402 on Base, charge settles only on success, and 10–180 s latency. The untrusted-data framing is also a genuine behavioral disclosure an agent needs in order to treat the payload safely.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then cost, latency, and safety caveats in tightly packed clauses with no filler. Every sentence changes how an agent would call the tool or handle its result.

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 output schema, the description does sketch the return payload (direction, strength, narrative support) and covers pricing, latency, and payment failure semantics. It stops short of describing the actual response structure or what a partial/degraded result looks like, which is the remaining gap for a live-research tool.

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% and both parameters (asset, window) carry inline examples, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds only the scoping idea of "one asset over a window" and no format, range, or default detail beyond it, which is the baseline expectation.

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 verb and resource ("Live trend read for one asset over a window") and names the outputs it returns: direction, strength, narrative support. It never distinguishes itself from close siblings like vedetta_narrative, vedetta_snapshot, or vedetta_consensus, so an agent must infer which trend-flavored tool to pick.

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 one-asset/one-window scoping implies when the tool fits, and "Descriptive research, not financial advice" plus the untrusted-data instruction set guardrails on how to use the answer. But there is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not, and no named alternative among the 20 siblings.

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