Smart-money consensus for one category

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure responsibility. It does well by surfacing the paid cost, claiming edge verification, and describing the 404/not-charged behavior plus known_categories in the error response. It avoids discussing auth, rate limits, or output shape, but those are less critical for this simple read-like 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 only three sentences and front-loads the most decision-relevant detail: the ~$0.02 cost. Every sentence adds value: cost, data scope, and error handling.

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?

For a single-parameter paid tool with no output schema, the description covers the most important operational details: cost, scope, unknown input behavior, and the kind of data returned. It could be more complete by describing the success response structure or valid category source, but the current level is fairly strong.

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?

There is only one parameter and the description says 'category' and that unknown categories cause a 404 with known_categories, which adds some meaning. However, the schema itself has no parameter description, enum, or examples, and the description doesn't define what counts as a valid category or where to find the known category list ahead of time.

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 identifies the tool as providing edge-verified smart-money consensus scoped to one category, with net flow and direction. It is distinguishable from related signal tools by its category scoping, although it lacks an explicit retrieval verb.

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 behavior is clearly scoped to one category, which implies when it should be used, and the cost/non-charge on unknown categories gives practical guidance. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use the sibling non-category consensus tool instead, or other alternatives.

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