social_get_topic

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'detailed social metrics' without specifying what metrics are returned, whether data is historical/current, or any limitations. This is minimal and leaves major gaps for an agent deciding if this tool is appropriate.

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 concise sentence with no redundant wording. It front-loads the main action and resource, making it easy to parse. Zero filler.

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?

With no output schema and only a 9-word description, the tool leaves the agent with little understanding of what 'detailed social metrics' includes. Given the large sibling set, the description fails to provide necessary context about return values, time ranges, or other behavioral nuances.

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%, with the 'topic' parameter already documented with examples ('defi', 'memecoin', 'eth-etf'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 detailed social metrics for a specific topic/narrative, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like social_get_topics (which likely lists topics) and social_get_twitter_stats (which focuses on platform-specific stats), though it does not explicitly name these differences.

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 phrase 'for a specific topic/narrative' implies use when a single topic's metrics are needed, as opposed to general lists or coin-specific metrics. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like social_get_coin_metrics or social_get_market_sentiment.

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