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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about the data source (CoinGecko) and caching (60s cache), indicating data may not be real-time. However, it does not mention rate limits, error handling, or unsupported symbols, which are relevant for a production tool.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The key information (purpose, return format, data source, cache) is front-loaded and directly stated. Every sentence earns its place.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core behavior: what it fetches, returns, and a notable caching detail. It does not specify the response structure (e.g., map vs. list), but given the low complexity and schema coverage, it is sufficiently complete.

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 100% with a clear description of the 'symbols' parameter. The description adds examples ('BTC', 'ETH', 'SOL') but these are also present in the schema. No additional semantic meaning is provided beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('live USD prices for crypto tokens') with concrete examples (BTC, ETH, SOL, USDC). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like market_sentiment and funding_rate, which address different data domains.

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 usage for obtaining current crypto prices in USD but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions or preferred contexts, leaving the agent to infer applicability.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It adds context about data source (DeFiLlama, 15,000+ pools) and scale (40+ chains), which helps set expectations. However, it does not disclose return format, ordering, or edge cases, leaving some behavioral details unspecified.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys purpose and filters. Every element adds value, with no redundant or extraneous information.

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 tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description gives a solid overview but lacks details like what 'top' means, the return structure, or default ordering. It is adequate for a simple read-only data tool but not fully complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 7 parameters. The description merely lists the filter names (chain, project, symbol, min APY, min TVL, stablecoins) without adding new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('top DeFi yields'), with clear scope ('across 40+ chains'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (crypto_prices, market_sentiment, etc.) by explicitly focusing on DeFi yields and listing relevant filters.

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 clear context that this tool is for DeFi yield data, making it obvious when to use it over siblings. It does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, but the domain is well-defined and the filters indicate appropriate use cases.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the data origin (Binance USDT futures) and explains the interpretation of positive values (longs pay shorts, bullish bias). It does not disclose rate limits, error behavior, or whether the rate is current or historical, but for a simple read operation this is acceptable. It adds value beyond the schema by explaining the sign convention.

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 two concise sentences. The first states the core functionality, the second provides a key interpretation detail. No redundant or unnecessary 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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the what, where, and interpretation. It does not explicitly state the return format (percentage vs. decimal) or whether it is the current rate, but the core usage is clear.

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 schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter, describing it as 'Base symbol'. The tool description adds that the symbol pertains to the Binance USDT futures perp context, which clarifies the symbol's domain. It does not add specific format details (e.g., uppercase), but the schema already specifies max length and example symbols.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get', identifies the resource 'perp funding rate', and names the source 'Binance USDT futures'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like crypto_prices or technical_indicators.

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 explicit when-to-use or comparison to alternatives. The context implies it is for funding rate queries, but it does not state when to prefer this over crypto_prices or market_sentiment. The positive/negative explanation adds usage context for interpretation, but no exclusion criteria.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It only lists data contents without disclosing update frequency, data source, or any performance characteristics. There is no mention of potential staleness, rate limits, or failure 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently captures the tool's purpose and contents with no waste. It is appropriately concise and easy to parse.

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 is simple with no parameters and no output schema. The description adequately explains what data is returned, making it functional for an agent to decide to invoke. However, it could benefit from noting the intended use case or recency of data, but overall sufficient.

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 no parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter usage. The description focuses on the returned data, which is sufficient for a zero-argument call.

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 BTC/ETH/SOL prices, Fear & Greed index, and BTC funding rate in one combined call. This differentiates it from sibling tools like crypto_prices and market_sentiment, which focus on individual data points.

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 phrase 'in one combined call' implies using this when you need multiple market metrics at once, but it does not explicitly specify when to use this versus individual sibling tools, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives. Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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

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 the output content but does not mention any behavioral traits such as data freshness, authentication requirements, or potential limitations. For a simple read tool, some of these may not apply, but the absence of any additional context beyond the output list leaves the agent uninformed about operation quirks.

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, front-loaded sentence that names the resource and lists specific outputs. Every word contributes value, with no fluff or repetition.

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 tool's simplicity (0 params, no output schema), the description is appropriately complete. It details what metrics are returned, though it does not specify the response structure or how this tool relates to siblings, which would elevate it further.

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 no parameter explanation is needed. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools applies here; the description adds no unnecessary parameter detail.

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 verb+resource: 'Get crypto market sentiment'. It specifies exact outputs (Fear & Greed index, total cap, BTC/ETH dominance), making it distinct from siblings like crypto_prices or market_overview.

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 when to use the tool (when sentiment data is needed), but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives or state exclusions. It provides context but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it.

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

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries full burden. It mentions data source 'From Binance klines' and uses the read-only verb 'Get', but does not disclose return format, number of periods, or any limitations. This leaves significant behavioral 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 a single sentence front-loaded with the primary action, followed by a concise list of indicators. It is efficient and every word contributes meaning.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must hint at return data. It names indicators but not their structure or counts. It also lacks usage guidelines. For moderate complexity, it is minimally adequate but has clear gaps.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning; it merely lists indicators without relating them to the symbol or interval parameters. No extra value beyond 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 uses the specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'technical analysis indicators', enumerating RSI, MACD, EMA, SMA, volatility, ATR, and trend/momentum signals. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like crypto_prices or market_sentiment.

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 this is the tool for technical analysis but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention any exclusions. It provides no guidance on choosing between this and sibling tools.

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