crypto_news

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully adds context about the return format (headlines with specific fields) and pricing information ($0.003 USDC per call), which are not covered by annotations. However, it lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or data freshness that would be helpful for a news/sentiment 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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement, usage guidelines, return format, and pricing—all in four concise sentences. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides good contextual coverage. It explains purpose, usage, returns, and pricing. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from more detail on response structure (e.g., pagination, error formats) to be fully complete.

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 the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain sentiment scoring methodology or how 'currencies' filtering works). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('get latest crypto news and community sentiment') and resources ('from r/CryptoCurrency for any token'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like token_price or fear_greed_index by focusing on news and sentiment rather than pricing, metrics, or on-chain data.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('Use when: You need recent news headlines or community sentiment for one or more crypto tokens'). It also distinguishes from siblings by specifying its unique focus on news/sentiment, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions beyond this scope.

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