volume_breakout_scanner

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 only restates the detection logic and parameter meanings, but does not disclose any side effects, limitations, error scenarios, or operational context (e.g., rate limits, data source, or output behavior). This is minimal transparency beyond the tool's name.

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 front-loaded with a clear purpose sentence, followed by a well-organized argument list. Every sentence earns its place, and there is 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 output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, the description lacks usage context, examples, or edge-case handling, and does not address the absence of annotations. For a 5-parameter tool, the description is functional but not fully complete for an agent to invoke it confidently in all scenarios.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The Args block provides meaningful explanations for all five parameters, such as 'How many times the volume should be above normal level' for volume_multiplier. This adds value beyond the bare schema titles and defaults, though some explanations are somewhat self-evident.

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 purpose: 'Detect coins with volume breakout + price breakout.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from generic tools, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate among sibling scanners like volume_confirmation_analysis or smart_volume_scanner.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It neither states prerequisites nor mentions exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the parameter list. This is a significant gap given the number of sibling scanning tools.

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