Coin Alpha Map

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful output semantics by enumerating the returned fields, but it does not disclose ordering, pagination behavior, or other execution traits, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 compact and well-structured: it opens with the core concept, then lists the output fields, and closes with a concrete use case. Every sentence contributes distinct value with no repetition or filler.

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 read-only list-like tool with only three self-describing parameters and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It enumerates the returned fields and states the guiding use case, although it could optionally mention sorting or the semantics of 'lifecycles' for full completeness.

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 input schema already covers all three parameters with descriptions, so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 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 clearly states the tool's function: splitting per-coin profit pools into winners, losers, and net, and lists the returned fields. It communicates a specific analytical use case, but it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from similar sibling tools like pulse_coin_kings or pulse_persistent_winners, so it falls short of 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 clear intended use case in the form of a question: "which coins are net wealth creators vs destroyers?" This gives an agent useful context for when to invoke the tool, though it does not mention exclusions or alternative sibling tools explicitly.

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