crypto-momentum-pack

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses key behavioral traits: it returns data from multiple sources, adds ~1s latency when include_yields is true, and notes cost savings (53% of chain cost). It also explains the effect of korean_only (faster, omits global movers). No contradictions.

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 at four sentences, front-loading the core functionality. Every sentence provides unique information: first sentence states the combo, second mentions cost, third specifies returns, fourth gives use case. No wasted words.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description covers the tool's inputs, outputs, and use cases well. It explains the multi-source nature, latency, and cost. A minor gap is the lack of output structure, but the description sufficiently sets expectations.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, but the description adds significant value: for include_yields it notes latency impact, for korean_only it specifies speed and omission of global data, and for limit it clarifies 'per source'. This goes beyond the schema's base descriptions.

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 what the tool does: combines Korean exchange volume leaders, global 24h movers, and optional DeFi yield cross-reference in one call. It specifies the return types (top gaining/losing/volume-leading tokens on Upbit, global CoinGecko movers, and DeFi yield pools). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like korean-crypto-movers, market-movers, and defi-yields.

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 provides use cases: 'pre-trade momentum confirmation, cross-exchange alpha identification, and DeFi capital allocation.' It also mentions that Korean volume often leads global moves, implying when this tool is valuable. However, it does not explicitly exclude scenarios or list alternative tools.

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