Market sentiment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds value by explaining that views include slopes for trending and health for pipeline status, which clarifies the tool's behavior beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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 a single sentence with a list, efficiently conveying the aggregate nature and view options. It is front-loaded and contains no waste. Slight improvement could separate views more clearly.

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?

Given the output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the main functionality and view options adequately. The tool is straightforward; the description is sufficient for an agent to understand its role among many siblings.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the views (e.g., 'slopes/entity-slopes (what is trending)') and providing default and usage tips for the 'top' parameter ('default 50', 'raise for more, lower to save tokens'). This enhances parameter understanding.

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 'Aggregate market sentiment' and enumerates specific views, providing a precise verb and resource. This differentiates it from siblings like get_coin_sentiment or get_market_health which focus on specific coins or health only.

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 lists available views but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_coin_sentiment or list_narratives. Usage context is implied through the view options, but no exclusion criteria or alternative recommendations are provided.

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