social_get_dominance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It explains the metric's meaning (share of social mentions vs total crypto mentions), which adds transparency about what is computed. However, it does not disclose data sources, time periods, output format, or any limitations, leaving gaps for a read-only metrics tool.

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, front-loaded sentence that defines the tool's purpose without any fluff. It is appropriately concise and well-structured, earning a high score.

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?

The tool is simple with one well-documented parameter, but there is no output schema, so the description should compensate by explaining return values or usage context. It defines the metric but omits details like the response structure, time period, or any caveats, making it adequate but not fully complete.

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 already provides 100% coverage with a clear description of the 'symbols' parameter ('Array of coin symbols to compare'). The description adds no additional parameter context, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the schema's completeness.

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 social dominance metrics and defines the metric as 'share of social mentions compared to total crypto mentions.' This is a specific verb+resource with a useful definition. It distinguishes from sibling social tools like sentiment or feed tools, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus other social analytics tools. The description only explains what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the name and definition. There are no explicit exclusions or alternative tool references.

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