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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only, what data it returns, any side effects, permission requirements, or rate limits. This is a critical gap for a data retrieval 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?

The description is extremely short (7 words) but lacks necessary detail. It is not a model of conciseness because it sacrifices comprehensiveness; multiple important aspects (params, usage, behavior) are absent. The single sentence does not front-load critical 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 two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description must be highly informative. It is not. It omits what the tool returns, how to interpret results, and any prerequisites or limitations. Completely inadequate for an agent to use correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain parameter meanings beyond the schema. It adds that the asset is 'tokenized' and hints at 'trading context', but does not clarify the 'days' parameter (likely a lookback period) or the expected format of 'symbol'. Very minimal added value.

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 'Full trading context for a tokenized asset' gives a general idea but is vague. It implies retrieving market data for a tokenized asset but does not specify what 'context' includes (e.g., price, volume, fundamentals). It fails to distinguish from sibling tools like 'candles' or 'history' which may provide overlapping data.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling data tools (calendar, candles, earnings, etc.), the agent has no criteria to decide that 'context' is the right choice for a given task.

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