navi_crypto_indicator

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable context about the payment mechanism (x402, $0.003 USDC) and outlines the exact data returned, including an agent reading guide. It does not mention rate limits or error behaviors, but for a simple read-only tool, this is reasonably transparent.

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 compact and front-loaded, with two sentences covering the core purpose, valid inputs, and payment details. Every phrase adds value, and there is no wasted verbiage. The structure is clear: first the deliverable, then the input enum and cost.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description provides a solid overview of what the tool returns (current value, history, thresholds, guide). It could be slightly more complete by mentioning data freshness or error cases, but the essential information is present for an agent to select and invoke 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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the 'name' parameter and its valid values. The description also lists the valid names, but it adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. The baseline for high coverage is 3, and the description does not compensate with extra context.

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 provides a deep dive on one crypto macro indicator, listing all returned components (definition, formula, thresholds, current value, stats, history, guide). The explicit list of valid indicator names distinguishes it from sibling tools like navi_crypto_prices or navi_crypto_health, which cover different domains.

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 implies the tool is for macro indicator analysis, but it does not explicitly say when to use it versus alternatives such as navi_crypto_prices or navi_market_report. There is no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance, only the implied context from the tool's purpose.

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