get_market_overview

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

The description discloses a cost of $0.002 USDC, which is a valuable behavioral detail not captured elsewhere. However, it does not describe the response format, the scope of 'full', or any additional traits like rate limits. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden but only partially fulfills it.

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 concise, consisting of two short sentences. The first sentence states the action and content, and the second provides cost information. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail, making it well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

The tool aggregates multiple market metrics, but the description only lists three components, while sibling tools suggest many more (prices, volatility, correlation, etc.). The term 'full' could be misleading. There is no output schema, so the description is the sole source for expectational completeness, and it lacks a preview of the return value or confirmation that it includes all other metrics.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description need not explain parameter usage. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description adds no parameter-related semantics, which is appropriate given there are no parameters to document.

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 function with the verb 'get' and the resource 'full market overview', then lists specific components (sentiment bias, arbitrage detection, funding yield). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on individual metrics, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies the tool is for obtaining a comprehensive snapshot but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over the sibling tools. It is named 'overview', which suggests aggregation, but there is no direct guidance on when to use this instead of, for example, get_sentiment or get_funding_rates.

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