market_get_fear_greed_current

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 adds value by disclosing the meaning of the index values (0-100 with category ranges), which helps the agent interpret the result. However, it does not mention any potential caveats like data freshness or response format, but for a simple read-only index fetch this is sufficient.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that immediately states the tool's function and includes the essential scale definitions. There is no wasted wording; it is front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns and how to interpret the value. It could specify the exact return format (e.g., number vs object), but the scale and categories are clear enough for this simple use case.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides no input semantics. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description's scale explanation is not about parameters but still adds context about the tool's output, which is helpful. No further parameter clarification 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 states the tool retrieves the current Crypto Fear & Greed Index and explains the 0-100 scale with category boundaries. The word 'current' distinguishes it from the sibling tools market_get_fear_greed_historical and market_analyze_fear_greed_trend.

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 obtaining the present index value, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus the historical or analysis variants. There is no direct mention of alternatives or exclusions, so the usage context is only implied.

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