get_real_market_cap

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose genuinely important behavior: the exact eligibility rules (what is excluded) and the full composition of the return (headline sample cap, excluded breakdown, real BTC dominance, native coin count). It omits any statement about read-only nature, auth, or rate limits, but for a public metric fetch the omission is minor.

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?

A single dense sentence, but it is front-loaded with the verb and the headline metric before piling on the qualifiers, so an agent gets the gist immediately. Every clause (the exclusion list, the returned sub-fields) adds information rather than restating the name.

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 no annotations, the description does the heavy lifting by enumerating the returned fields and the counting rules, which is enough for an agent to call a zero-parameter tool correctly. It stops short of explaining units, update cadence, or freshness of the metric.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. No parameter behavior is misdescribed.

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 and a very precisely scoped resource ('REAL total crypto market cap') with an explicit exclusion list, so an agent knows exactly what metric is produced. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like market_brief, which could plausibly also return market aggregates.

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 implied by the methodology: this is the tool to call when you need a stablecoin/wrapped/RWA-free market cap rather than a headline figure. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance and no sibling is named as an alternative, so the agent must infer the routing.

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