market_sentiment

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.