crypto-top-movers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that data comes from CoinGecko public API refreshed every 1-5 minutes, that stablecoins are excluded from the movers ranking, and implies read-only, non-destructive behavior. This is transparent enough for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the essential content. It is slightly verbose but every sentence adds value (purpose, usage, data source, refresh rate). 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 no output schema and no annotations, the description effectively explains the return content (gainers, losers, top 10 coins with prices and 24h change, global stats). It could detail the exact structure of responses, but the level of detail is sufficient for the tool's simplicity.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter info since none exist, but this is appropriate. The description's mention of what the tool returns compensates for the lack of output schema.

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 explicitly states that the tool provides a real-time snapshot of top 5 gainers and losers, top 10 largest coins by market cap, and global market statistics. It uses specific verbs (snapshot, gainers, losers, returns) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'crypto-fear-greed' or 'crypto-fiat-price' by focusing on market movers and overall regime.

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 advises using this tool 'before any crypto portfolio, trading, or market analysis task to get a current regime read,' providing clear usage context. It does not explicitly list when not to use or alternative tools, but the directive is sufficient for an AI agent to decide.

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