get_crypto_fear_greed

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the output content (current value + 30-day history) and the meaning of the 0-100 scale, which is useful beyond structured fields, but says nothing about read-only nature, data freshness/update cadence, or failure behavior for a retrieval tool.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with zero filler: purpose and return content first, scale interpretation second, usage context last. Every sentence earns its place.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what is returned, the value scale, and a usage hint. The only real gap is that it doesn't clarify the configurable history range or data recency, both minor for this 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 description coverage is 100% and the single 'history' parameter (1-30, default 30) is fully documented in the schema, so baseline 3 applies. The description's phrase 'son 30 günlük geçmişi' restates the default rather than adding syntax or behavior detail.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource: returns the current Crypto Fear and Greed Index value plus 30-day history. The resource is unique among siblings (no other tool covers a sentiment index), and the scale interpretation (0=extreme fear, 100=extreme greed) removes ambiguity about what the returned number means.

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?

'Piyasa duygu analizi ve zamanlama için' gives an implied usage context (market sentiment analysis and timing) but never states when to prefer this over siblings like get_crypto_market_overview or get_market_indicators, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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