crypto_movers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the Alpaca key limitation (tradable universe) and venue-specific liquidity, which is valuable behavioral context. However, it omits other behaviors like read-only nature, output format, or pagination, leaving some gaps.

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 front-loaded with the core function and parameter range, then adds the caveat about Alpaca keys. It is not overly verbose, but the caveat sentence is somewhat long and could be tightened. Overall, it is well-structured and earns a 4.

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 one simple parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential usage: what it returns, the parameter, and a key behavioral nuance. It is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly, though it lacks details on output fields or examples, so it misses a 5.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It does: 'top' is described as rows (1-50, default 20). This adds meaning beyond the bare integer schema, though it could detail units or implications more thoroughly.

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 provides crypto movers over a rolling 24 hours, with categories like all, most_active, gainers, losers, and a top parameter. It is specific about the resource and scope. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'movers' tool, the crypto prefix makes it distinct, so it earns a 4 rather than 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 description provides a behavioral note about Alpaca key limitations but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'movers' or other crypto-specific tools. It does not state when not to use it or mention any alternative, so usage guidance is minimal.

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