get_crypto_news

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. The '[FREE]' tag usefully signals no payment is required, but it says nothing about rate limits, caching/freshness, ordering, or pagination behavior for the limit parameter, leaving the agent to discover these by trial.

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?

Three short lines, front-loaded with the cost tag and the core action, with the source list and filter list each in their own clause. No filler, though the enumeration of six outlets is slightly longer than strictly needed to convey coverage.

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?

Wait — assess honestly: with no output schema, no annotations, and two undocumented params, the description should say more about the return shape and the limit parameter. It covers sources and categories well but leaves the response structure and limit semantics to guesswork for a filtering tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add real value by enumerating accepted category values (bitcoin, ethereum, defi, ai-agents, coinbase, solana, x402), effectively supplying an enum the schema lacks. However, the 'limit' parameter is never mentioned — no default, maximum, or ordering semantics — so compensation is only partial.

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 specific verb and resource ('Get live crypto and AI news') and names the six upstream outlets plus the aggregating engine, so the agent knows exactly what data comes back. It does not differentiate itself from near-siblings like get_ccn_synthesis, get_ccn_freshness, or ccn_story_threads_info, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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 'Filter by:' list implies the tool is for topic-scoped headline retrieval, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no exclusion or alternative named (e.g., that synthesis/thread tools exist for deeper analysis). Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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