get_sentiment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the cost ($0.001 USDC), which is a significant behavioral trait. However, it does not mention the return format, calculation details beyond the components, or any other behavioral aspects like rate limits or data freshness. Cost disclosure adds value, but the profile is not rich.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes a separate cost note. Every word earns its place; there is no unnecessary elaboration.

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?

For a simple zero-parameter read-only tool, the description covers the key aspects: what it returns (composite sentiment with components) and the cost. The lack of an output schema means agents won't know the exact response structure, but the description gives sufficient context for a simple getter. It falls short of 5 due to missing likely return format hints.

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 cannot add parameter-level meaning. Per the baseline rule, 0 params scores 4. The description correctly makes no claims about parameters, keeping the focus on purpose.

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: getting composite market sentiment, and specifies the components (Fear & Greed Index, funding-based, composite score). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by its focus on sentiment rather than raw prices or funding rates.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios like 'use for overall market mood' or exclude cases better served by get_funding_rates or get_market_overview. The cost note is informative but not usage direction.

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