volume_breakout_scanner

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds some behavioral detail by explaining the return contract: returns list[dict] on success, an error envelope on total upstream failure, and that an empty list means no matches today. However, it does not discuss rate limits, performance characteristics, or any side effects beyond the obvious read-only nature.

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 a brief purpose statement followed by a parameter list and return information. It is reasonably concise, though it somewhat duplicates the schema by listing parameters that are already present. The structure is logical and easy to scan, but could be tightened by referencing the schema instead of repeating content.

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 that the tool has 5 parameters, no required fields, and an output schema, the description covers all parameters, return types, and error behavior. It also clarifies the meaning of an empty list. However, it omits any mention of preconditions, such as the need for an active market or data availability, and does not discuss edge cases (e.g., invalid timeframe values). The presence of an output schema compensates for missing low-level return details.

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 description provides semantic explanations for each parameter (e.g., 'volume_multiplier: How many times the volume should be above normal level' and 'timeframe: One of 5m, 15m, 1h, 4h, 1D, 1W, 1M'), which the input schema lacks. This gives the agent a clear understanding of what each parameter controls, though it could be augmented with examples or more explicit units (e.g., percentage as a number) to reach a perfect score.

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 begins with a clear verb 'Detect' and specifies the resource 'coins' with the criteria 'volume breakout + price breakout'. This is distinct from the sibling tools (e.g., smart_volume_scanner, top_gainers) and immediately clarifies the tool's primary function.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to choose this tool over the many alternative scanners, such as when a user specifically wants a combined volume and price breakout vs. volume-only or pattern-based scans. There is no mention of appropriate use cases or comparison with siblings.

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