get_news

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose key behavior: a paid x402 call costing 0.005 USDC, multi-source aggregation, and deduplication of overlapping headlines. It still omits what happens on payment failure or rate limits, and gives no sense of response shape.

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?

It is compact and front-loads the resource and sources, but the price is stated twice ('0.005 USDC' in the lead and again as 'Cost: 0.005 USDC via x402' at the end), which is wasted repetition in a two-sentence description.

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 two-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, it covers sources, dedup behavior, payment requirement, and the Fear & Greed component. It falls slightly short by not indicating the return format (e.g., article shape or how the Fear & Greed value is presented), which matters since no output schema exists to compensate.

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%, so both q and limit are already documented with types and constraints. The description only echoes the optional keyword filter and adds nothing about the limit parameter or filter matching semantics, so the schema does the heavy lifting — baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb+resource pair — fetching latest crypto headlines plus a Fear & Greed index — and names the exact upstream sources (Cointelegraph, Decrypt, The Block, CoinDesk). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_price, get_trending, or get_new, which return market/trending data rather than editorial news.

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?

Usage is only implied through the word 'news' and the optional keyword filter; there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_trending or get_new, and no exclusions. An agent must infer the selection criteria from the resource name alone.

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