sentiment_crypto_fear_greed

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by explaining the computation basis (Bitcoin volatility, market volume, social media, surveys, dominance, trends), which gives the agent insight into the tool's behavior beyond safety.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the core functionality and provide necessary context with zero 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?

For a parameterless, read-only tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool returns (score, rating, range) and the underlying factors. It also suggests integration with sibling tools, making it contextually 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?

There are no parameters (schema coverage 100% vacuously). The description does not need to add parameter details since none exist; baseline score of 4 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 clearly states it retrieves the Crypto Fear & Greed Index from a specific source (Alternative.me), returns a score (0-100) with rating categories, and explains the underlying factors. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'sentiment_fear_greed' and crypto tools by focusing on crypto 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 recommends using this tool alongside coingecko tools for crypto market context, providing a usage hint. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives.

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