navi_crypto_health

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

Although no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden well by disclosing key behavioral traits: deterministic ('No LLM'), fast ('sub-second'), and paid ('$0.005 USDC per call'). It adds value beyond the empty schema, though it does not explicitly state whether it is read-only.

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 yet information-dense: four sentences cover indicators, scoring, verdict, performance, deep-dive availability, and pricing. Every sentence earns its place, and the most critical information (purpose) is front-loaded.

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 adequately explains return values: each indicator scored favorable/neutral/unfavorable with exact values, plus a global risk_on/mixed/risk_off verdict. It also covers performance and pricing, making it complete for selecting and invoking the 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?

The input schema is empty with 100% schema coverage (no parameters), so the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description adds no parameter info, but none is needed.

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 identifies the tool as a crypto market health check with 9 specific indicators, giving a clear verb ('health check') and resource ('crypto market'). It distinguishes from siblings like navi_crypto_indicator (per-indicator deep dives) and navi_crypto_prices (prices), making it unique.

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?

It implies when to use this tool (quick overall health snapshot) and hints at when not to (for per-indicator deep dives, which are available elsewhere). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide explicit when-not guidance, so it stops short of a 5.

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