analyze_crypto_insights

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose that the tool builds paragraph-grounded drafts, separates multiple analysis categories, and uses rule-based logic rather than an LLM. However, it does not mention error behavior, input quality expectations, or side effects, so coverage is partial.

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 two sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a valuable behavioral distinction between rule-based behavior and LLM-based alternatives.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the tool takes two undocumented nested objects and has no annotations. The description gives high-level intent but omits input structure, parameter interplay, and any call-level requirements needed for correct invocation.

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 0%, yet the description does not explain what news_digest or enriched_news should contain or how they relate. The parameter names are mildly suggestive, but not sufficient to define required structure or usage, especially since both are open, nested objects.

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 states a specific verb (Build) and resource (paragraph-grounded insight drafts), and enumerates the output categories: reported observations, interpretations, counterpoints, and watch metrics. This clearly differentiates the tool from the sibling fetch, summarize, and evidence-collection tools even though siblings aren't named.

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 explicit guidance is given about when to choose analyze_crypto_insights over fetch_today_crypto_news, summarize_crypto_news, or collect_article_evidence. The phrase 'Uses explicit topic rules, not an LLM' hints at a deterministic use case, but there are no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions stated.

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