market_brief

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It describes the data returned but does not state that the operation is read-only, has no side effects, or has any freshness/rate-limit characteristics. For a zero-parameter aggregation tool, these omissions are not critical but remain gaps.

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 efficiently lists the brief's components. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler text.

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?

Given the low complexity, empty input schema, and absence of an output schema, the description adequately lists what the brief contains. However, it does not describe the output structure or format beyond 'machine-readable', leaving some ambiguity about how the data is organized.

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 there are no parameter semantics to document. Baseline score of 4 applies because the empty schema is fully consistent with the tool's nature.

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 returns a 'machine-readable market brief' and enumerates its contents (real cap, excluded-cap/category breakdown, breadth, top 5, biggest 24h gainers). This is a specific resource with scope, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_real_market_cap or list_top_coins.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. There is no mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent must infer usage context entirely from the tool name and contents list.

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