token_alpha

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds that data is real-time and which metrics are computed, but says nothing about latency, rate limits, data freshness, or what a 'no results' case looks like. Useful context, but not rich behavioral disclosure.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the category ('Real-time crypto & DeFi order-flow intelligence') followed by the metric list. Dense but every clause maps to a real output dimension. Slightly list-heavy, hence not a 5.

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 read-only analytical tool whose safety profile is fully covered by annotations and whose two params are fully described in the schema, the description supplies the remaining 'what does it return' context. The absence of an output schema means the metric list is doing the explanatory work, and it does so adequately.

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%, so both the query formats ('AERO', 'PEPE', '0x...') and the chain enum are already documented in the schema. The description restates the ticker/contract-address input but adds no syntax or behavior beyond that. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the load.

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 pairs a specific verb ('Analyzes') with a well-scoped resource ('buy vs. sell transaction pressure, liquidity depth, volume velocity, FDV, and top DEX pools') for a specific input type ('any token ticker or contract address'). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like defi_yields (yield data) and wallet_profiler (wallet behavior).

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 context is implied by 'Real-time ... order-flow intelligence' and the listed metrics, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance and no named alternatives among siblings. An agent can infer intent but must decide selection on its own.

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