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

The annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, so the description is not burdened with safety disclosure. The description adds useful behavioral context: it returns a fixed set of market metrics, supports up to 50 tokens at once, and changes behavior when ids is empty to return top tokens by market cap.

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 three sentences with no wasted text. The output metrics and batch limit are front-loaded, followed by input format and the empty-ids fallback.

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 simple two-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough: it explains what data is returned, the maximum batch size, accepted identifier formats, and the empty-ids behavior. The annotations cover the safety profile, leaving no major gap for an agent to call this 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description still adds value by giving concrete id examples ('bitcoin', 'ethereum'), stating that ids are preferred over symbols, and clarifying that empty ids yields top tokens by market cap.

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 states a specific resource (market data for tokens) and the exact metrics returned (price, market cap, volume, 1h/24h/7d change), plus the batch limit of 50. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from nearby sibling tools such as get_launched_token_market or get_token.

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?

It gives practical input guidance: CoinGecko ids are preferred, symbols are accepted, and empty ids returns top tokens by market cap. However, it does not say when to choose this tool over alternatives like get_token, get_trending, or get_global_stats, so tool-selection guidance is only implied.

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