navi_market_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is AI-generated, uses real-time data, and crucially that it is a paid operation via x402 with a cost of $0.02 USDC per call on Base, settled automatically. This gives the agent important behavioral context about external dependencies and cost, though it does not cover rate limits or failure modes.

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 and effective: two sentences that front-load the purpose and process, then add the necessary cost information. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary technical detail.

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 tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description provides adequate context: input, process, cost, and output content. It lacks explicit output format information, but for a report-generation tool, the core usage context is covered well enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 already fully covers the single 'coins' parameter (comma-separated IDs, default values). The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 an AI-generated cryptocurrency market analysis report, with specific steps (fetches real-time prices from CoinGecko, uses Claude AI) and content (trends, risks, opportunities). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like navi_crypto_prices or navi_crypto_indicator by emphasizing a comprehensive analysis report rather than raw data or indicators.

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 this tool is for generating a market analysis report, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like navi_crypto_prices. There is no mention of exclusions or alternative tools, so usage guidance is present only by implication.

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