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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses auth requirements and their exact mechanisms, the user-facing URL, and the data-integrity guarantee that every number carries a source/time and failed plausibility checks are withheld rather than guessed. It also adds the negative constraints 'places no orders, moves no funds.'

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 core behavior, no-symbol mode, and auth path are front-loaded and information-dense. It runs long and tacks on trailing boilerplate ('Places no orders... Not financial advice'), which slightly dilutes the payload.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so by naming the fields returned (sections, ordering, pinned numbers, price lines with distance-from-now, notes, heading). It omits pagination/size details, but for a single-coin read it is otherwise complete.

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 single parameter is fully documented in the schema ('coin ticker, name or dashboard slug'). The description largely restates this behavior ('all of the user's versions when left out') without adding format examples or edge cases, so the baseline 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?

States a concrete verb and resource ('Read your user's own version of one coin's dashboard') and enumerates the sub-resources returned (sections, order, pinned numbers, price lines, notes, heading). This clearly distinguishes it from the plain crypto_dashboard and the write-oriented crypto_dashboard_customize sibling.

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?

Explains the two usage modes ('With no symbol: every field you can change... and the coins your user has a version of') and gives explicit prerequisites for linking an agent (API key, OAuth, or claim POST). It lacks an explicit 'use X instead of Y' routing statement against the sibling dashboard tools, keeping it at a strong 4.

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