coin_analysis

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the requirement for a bare ticker without exchange prefix, the fallback behavior that errors expose a 'listed_on' field naming exchanges that do list the symbol, and a high-level statement of the return (detailed analysis with all indicators and metrics). It does not contradict annotations.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Purpose, Args, Returns) and front-loads the primary purpose immediately. It includes necessary examples and lists without unnecessary fluff. It is somewhat lengthy due to the exchange and symbol enumerations, but those are essential given the schema lacks details. Each sentence earns its place.

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 complexity of symbols and exchanges across multiple markets, the description covers everything an agent needs to call the tool correctly: input formats, valid values, example calls, error-handling hints, and a definition of the return type. It also disambiguates from all sibling tools that could otherwise be confused. Nothing essential is missing, even without an output schema.

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 schema has zero description coverage, so the description carries the full burden for parameter meaning. It delivers extensively: symbol format with explicit crypto and stock examples, a comprehensive list of exchanges for both asset classes, and a timeframe list. It even clarifies that the symbol must not have an exchange prefix. This fully compensates for the bare schema.

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 opens with a precise statement of what the tool does: 'Get detailed analysis for a specific asset (coin or stock) on specified exchange and timeframe.' It explicitly declares itself the canonical single-symbol technical readout and names the sibling tools it is not (multi_timeframe_analysis, combined_analysis), making its purpose unmistakable and clearly distinct from all 40+ siblings.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: it calls out that no 'get_technical_analysis' or 'get_technical_summary' exists, directs users to 'multi_timeframe_analysis' for trend alignment across timeframes, and to 'combined_analysis' for news sentiment + headlines. It also gives a concrete call example. This leaves no ambiguity about the right use case.

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