truss44-mcp-crypto-price

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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive nature of the tool. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as pagination, rate limits, or data format. It does not contradict annotations, but also does not enrich them beyond the basic action.

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 a single sentence that is direct and front-loaded with the core action. It includes a brief usage note without unnecessary fluff, making it appropriately concise.

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 tool with fully documented parameters and an output schema, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to understand what the tool does and when it is useful. It could arguably mention the range of days or intervals, but these are in the schema, so the description is complete enough.

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?

All three parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add parameter semantics. The description itself does not mention any parameters, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage.

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 retrieves OHLCV candlestick data for cryptocurrencies, a specific verb and resource. It also notes utility for charting and technical analysis. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like analysis-historical or analysis-technical, though the candlestick focus is distinctive.

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 gives a usage context ('useful for charting and technical analysis') but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or when not to use it. This is implied rather than explicit.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, read-only operation. The description adds behavioral context by specifying what analysis metrics are computed (period high/low, price change, volatility), which goes beyond the annotations. It does not discuss rate limits or response format, but the output schema covers return values. The description adds value without contradicting annotations.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action ('Get historical price data') and then lists key features. It is efficient and free of filler, though it is a bit dense. It could be split into two sentences for readability, but it remains concise and structured well enough for an agent to parse quickly.

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 tool with full annotation coverage and an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and expected outputs. It mentions the customizable timeframe and the specific metrics, which gives the agent a solid understanding of what to expect. It does not detail parameter constraints (covered by schema) or error conditions, but those are not required given the completeness of the schema and annotations. The description is sufficient for correct invocation.

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% — every parameter (symbol, days, interval) has a detailed description in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying a 'customizable timeframe' via the days parameter. Since the schema fully documents each parameter, the description does not need to compensate, but it also does not enhance the parameter understanding. Baseline 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 states a clear verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('historical price data'), and explicitly lists the analysis outputs (period high/low, price change percentage, volatility metrics). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like analysis-candlestick (which would focus on price candles) and analysis-technical (which would cover technical indicators). The purpose is unambiguous and actionable.

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 implies usage for historical trend analysis over a customizable timeframe, which is clear enough context. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when NOT to use this tool (e.g., for real-time data or technical indicators). With siblings like analysis-technical and price-get, the lack of explicit routing is a minor gap, but the intent is inferable from the description.

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

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description need not restate those. It adds minimal behavioral context beyond 'latest', but does not disclose freshness, computation windows, or any other operational traits; the annotation coverage keeps this adequate rather than deficient.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource, lists concrete indicators, and states the analytical purpose. Every clause contributes value with no redundancy.

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?

The tool has one required parameter fully documented in the schema, strong annotations covering side effects, and an output schema. The description supplies enough interpretive context for an agent to select and invoke it correctly without further explanation.

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%, and the schema already explains the symbol parameter with an example. The description adds no new meaning about the parameter itself, 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 names a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('latest technical indicators'), and target ('a cryptocurrency'), and then enumerates exact indicators (SMA, EMA, RSI, MACD, VWAP). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like analysis-candlestick or analysis-historical.

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 implies when to use the tool by tying it to assessing momentum, trend direction, and overbought/oversold conditions, but it never explicitly states alternative tools or when not to use them. Context is present but comparative guidance is absent.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful operational scope (2-5 symbols, comma-separated) and the metric set, but does not add deeper behavioral details such as ordering, quotes currency, or error behavior. This is adequate given the annotations.

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 two sentences with no filler: the first sentence states the operation and included metrics, the second gives the exact input format with an example. Every sentence earns its place and the key constraint (2-5 symbols) 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 one fully documented required parameter, rich annotations for safety and idempotency, and an output schema present, the description provides everything an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly. No critical gaps remain for this simple comparison operation.

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%, and the schema already documents the symbols parameter as a comma-separated list of 2-5 symbols or names with an example. The description repeats this input format rather than adding new semantic meaning, so the baseline 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 starts with the specific verb 'Compare' and a clear resource ('2-5 cryptocurrencies'), then enumerates the exact metrics included: price, 24h change, volume, market cap, and rank. This distinguishes it from single-asset or search tools like assets-info and assets-search.

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 clearly states when to use the tool: comparing 2-5 cryptocurrencies side-by-side. It also communicates the required symbol-list format. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use the tool, so it falls just short of a 5.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the specific list of returned fields, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't disclose details like whether the symbol is case-sensitive, whether it accepts names vs. symbols only, or what happens for unknown symbols.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then lists the returned fields. Every word earns its place; no filler or redundancy.

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?

The tool has a single required parameter, full schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations covering safety. The description is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly. The only minor gap is not specifying input format flexibility (e.g., case sensitivity or exact name matching), but this is a small omission given the schema example.

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 the 'symbol' parameter with an example ('BTC or Bitcoin'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed metadata for a cryptocurrency'), and enumerates the exact fields returned (ID, rank, supply, max supply, VWAP, market cap, 24h volume). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like assets-search or assets-top, which focus on discovery or ranking rather than a single asset's metadata.

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 implies usage for fetching metadata for a single cryptocurrency, which is clear from the singular resource and the required 'symbol' parameter. It doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings like assets-compare or price-get, but the context signals and sibling names make the distinction reasonably inferable.

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

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

Annotations already cover read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context about returning multiple matches and partial matching, but it does not disclose details like result ordering, case sensitivity, or potential rate limits, which would add further transparency.

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 two sentences with no filler, front-loading the action and search criteria immediately. Every clause earns its place by specifying behavior and expected output.

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 search tool with an output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description plus schema provide all necessary information. Return fields are enumerated, limits are in the schema, and safety behavior is covered by annotations.

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%, with both 'query' and 'limit' fully documented including examples and constraints. The description essentially restates the query semantics without adding new parameter-level information beyond what the schema already provides.

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 verb ('Search'), a resource ('cryptocurrencies'), and the matching criteria ('name, symbol, or partial match'). It also lists the return fields, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like assets-info or assets-top by emphasizing partial-match search returning multiple results.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when looking up assets by a partial name or symbol. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclude cases where a sibling tool like assets-info or price-get would be more appropriate.

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

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the description's added value is noting that data is real-time and ranked by market cap. It does not discuss potential caveats like data freshness limits or pagination, but the annotations lower the burden for this simple read-only 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 a single, tight sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and then lists the returned fields efficiently, making it easy to scan.

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 one-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema and safe annotations, the description is nearly complete. It lacks explicit sibling routing, but the schema covers the limit parameter and the output schema handles return details, so only minimal contextual guidance is missing.

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 schema already fully describes the only parameter, limit, including its default, range, and purpose. The description restates the market-cap ranking context but does not add new parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a clear resource ('top cryptocurrencies ranked by market cap'), and names the exact fields returned: real-time price, 24-hour change percentage, and market cap. This distinguishes it from siblings like assets-info or assets-search, which target specific assets or queries rather than a ranked top-N list.

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 implies the use case: when you want a market-cap-ranked list of top assets. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as assets-info or assets-search, so the agent must infer routing from the sibling names.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the tool returns the top 5 exchanges and volume distribution, which is useful but not a major behavioral disclosure (e.g., no mention of pagination, rate limits, or authentication). Given the annotations, the added context is modest, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 a single, concise sentence that directly communicates the tool's purpose and its key output components. There is no fluff, redundancy, or unnecessary detail, making it optimally concise and well-structured.

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?

The tool is simple (single parameter) and has a provided output schema, so the description does not need to explain return structure. It covers the core purpose and specific data points. While it does not explicitly mention limitations or alternative routing, given the output schema and simple interface, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to call it 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?

The schema provides a complete description for the only parameter 'symbol' ('Cryptocurrency symbol or name (e.g. BTC or Bitcoin)'), achieving 100% coverage. The tool description does not add parameter-specific details, but none are needed given the schema's clarity. The baseline for high schema coverage is 3, and no extra enrichment is provided.

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 verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('market analysis for a cryptocurrency'), and enumerates the exact output components: top 5 exchanges by volume, price per exchange, and volume distribution percentages. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like market-exchanges (which likely lists exchanges) or analysis-technical (technical indicators), making the purpose unmistakable.

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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its numerous siblings (e.g., market-exchanges, analysis-historical). The description only implies that it is for obtaining exchange-level market breakdowns, but does not state exclusions or alternatives. This is implied usage rather than explicit routing.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: results are ranked by 24-hour volume)Skip a listing, and a specific lookup returns details such as volume, trading pairs, and market share.

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 sentences with no filler. The action, scope, and optional parameter behavior are all front-loaded and immediately actionable.

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?

The tool is simple, the annotations already convey the non-destructive read-only nature, and an output schema exists. The description covers the two modes of operation well enough for an agent to decide whether to call it and what to pass.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning by clarifying the two modes: omitting exchangeId returns a ranked list, while passing it returns details for that exchange. It also supplies valid value examples (binance, coinbase), going beyond the bare schema.

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 names a specific verb and resource (

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 explicitly explains the optional exchangeId behavior and what response mode it triggers, which is practical usage guidance. It does not name sibling alternatives or state exclusion cases, but the sibling set contains no other exchange-listing tool, so no stronger exclusion is needed.

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

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description needn't repeat it. It adds the scope of data returned, but discloses no additional behavioral traits such as data freshness, latency, or whether the metrics reflect real-time or delayed data. Consistent with annotations — no contradiction.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. The main purpose leads, and the four data points are listed compactly. Every word earns its place.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description covers what an agent needs to understand the tool's scope and expected result. The only gap is the absence of guidance for routing to overlapping siblings, but the low complexity keeps the bar modest.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description usefully enumerates what the output includes, compensating for the otherwise empty parameter surface by setting expectations about the returned metrics.

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 names a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('global overview of the cryptocurrency market'), and enumerates concrete content (market cap, 24h volume, Bitcoin dominance, active cryptocurrencies). The 'global' scope helps differentiate it from market-exchanges and market-rates, though it doesn't explicitly name any sibling to compare against.

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 provided on when to choose this tool over its 12 siblings. The word 'global' implies a macro-level use case, but there are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or named alternatives (e.g., when to use market-analysis instead). An agent must infer the boundary from the title alone.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that rates are USD-based and cover fiat plus crypto, but it does not disclose behavior on invalid slugs or whether omitting slug returns the full rate set. This is adequate given annotation coverage, but not rich.

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 sentences with no filler, main operation front-loaded, and the optional parameter behavior immediately follows. Every clause earns its place.

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 one-optional-parameter tool with a rich annotation set and an output schema, this description is sufficient: it states the base currency, asset classes, and the single-rate option, and the output schema covers return values. No critical invocation information is missing.

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%: the schema already documents slug as an optional single-rate lookup and gives the same example values. The tool description repeats those examples without adding new parameter meaning, so it stays at the high-coverage baseline of 3.

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 operation and resource: getting USD-based conversion rates for fiat currencies and cryptocurrencies. It also clearly states the optional slug behavior for single-rate lookups. It does not explicitly name a sibling to distinguish itself from, but the resource scope is specific enough to be identifiable.

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 gives no guidance on when to choose market-rates over close siblings such as price-get, price-convert, or market-global. The only usage hint is the optional slug parameter, which says how to fetch a single rate but not when this tool is the right one versus alternatives.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: 'Uses real-time exchange rates for accurate conversions', which tells the agent that results are time-sensitive and may vary between calls. This goes beyond the annotations.

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 two short sentences with a clear action first: 'Convert a cryptocurrency amount to any fiat currency'. It adds one extra sentence about real-time rates. No filler or redundant content. The purpose and behavior are 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?

The tool is simple (3 params, no nested objects), the schema fully describes each parameter, and an output schema exists. The description adds the key context that results use real-time exchange rates. There is no missing critical detail for an agent to call this tool 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?

The input schema covers all three parameters with descriptions, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds only marginal value by naming example currencies ('USD, EUR, JPY') which is already implied by the schema's description of the currency field. It does not clarify parameter formats or relationships beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline 3.

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 verb ('Convert') and resource ('a cryptocurrency amount to any fiat currency'), with concrete example currencies. It clearly distinguishes this tool from the price/get and market/rates siblings by focusing on conversion rather than just retrieving a price or rate.

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 clearly identifies the tool's use case: converting a crypto amount to fiat. It gives examples of target currencies but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools. This is clear context but lacks exclusions or explicit alternative guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description contributes the 'real-time' freshness qualifier and the exact metrics returned, but it does not address behavior for unknown symbols or rate limiting. It does not contradict the annotations.

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?

A single 17-word sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then lists the returned metrics without filler. Every word earns its place.

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 one-parameter, read-only tool with a full output schema and safety annotations, the description covers everything needed to select and invoke it correctly: what it returns, the input flexibility, and the scope. No critical information is missing.

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 coverage is 100%: the single 'symbol' parameter includes type, minLength, and an example (BTC or Bitcoin). The description's phrase 'by symbol or name' merely restates what the schema already documents, adding no new meaning. Baseline 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?

States a clear verb ('Get') and a specific resource: real-time price, 24-hour change percentage, trading volume, and market cap, for any cryptocurrency by symbol or name. The resource list makes it unambiguous and distinct in content from siblings like price-convert or market-rates, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

Intended usage is inferable from 'real-time' and the listed metrics, implying 'use when you need a current price snapshot.' However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like assets-info, market-rates, or analysis-historical, and no exclusions are stated.

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