Lethal Coins

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful context about the aggregation basis (per-lifecycle liquidation rate) and the returned fields, but it does not disclose ordering, units, or any timing/scope caveats beyond what the schema provides.

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 tight sentences: the first states the purpose and metric, the second lists return fields and gives a natural-language use case. There is no filler, and the key idea is front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by listing the returned fields and framing the query intent. It is largely complete for a simple read-only listing tool, though 'total penalty' lacks units and the sort order is only implied by 'highest.'

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 already documents limit, offset, minLifecycles, and useToonFormat. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema states, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Find the most dangerous markets') and pins down a precise metric: 'coins with the highest per-lifecycle liquidation rate.' This clearly differentiates it from siblings like pulse_top_liquidators or pulse_survivors through the focus on per-lifecycle liquidation.

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 query: 'Use for "which coins blow people up most often?".' This is an explicit use case. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is strong enough that an agent should know when to select it.

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