Vietnam crypto news (in English)

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does disclose that the tool is paid (up to $0.02 USDC.e per call) and that it translates content. However, it does not describe output format, potential limitations, or any operational details like rate limits or data freshness, so it provides only partial transparency.

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 structured in coherent parts: function, unique value, usage, and cost. It is not overly long, but the marketing-style phrasing ('Unique source: ...') adds slight verbosity. Overall it is efficient and front-loaded, but not as minimal as the highest-tier examples.

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 simple tool with 2 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains what the tool does, why it is valuable, when to use it, and its cost. It could mention return format or pagination behavior, but for a news feed tool this is not critical. The level of detail matches the tool's complexity.

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 input schema already has 100% coverage with descriptions for both 'limit' and 'query'. The tool description does not add any extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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: reports on Vietnamese media about crypto, translated into English. It uses a specific verb ('reporting', 'translated') and resource ('Vietnamese media'), and distinguishes itself from siblings by highlighting its unique source and the fact that Vietnamese media is invisible to English-language agents.

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 explicitly says 'Use to catch regional narratives and regulatory news before they reach English press,' which provides clear guidance on when to use the tool. It also notes the paid nature and cost, helping the agent decide if use is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives, so it stops short of a perfect score.

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