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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It mentions the data source (CoinGecko) but does not disclose behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, or whether the tool is read-only. This is a significant gap.

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 efficiently lists all available data types. It is concise, but for a multi-action tool, a structured format (e.g., bullet points) could improve readability and action mapping.

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 8 parameters and multiple distinct actions, the description lacks detail on what each action returns (no output schema). Key information like default vs_currency and pagination defaults are in the schema but not elaborated. The description is too high-level for an agent to use confidently without further investigation.

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 parameters are already documented. The description does not add extra meaning or context beyond listing the actions; 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 provides CoinGecko crypto market data and enumerates specific actions (search, price, OHLCV, markets, trending, global). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like crypto_price, which may partially overlap.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool over its siblings (e.g., crypto_price, crypto_derivatives). An agent must infer usage solely from the listed actions, which is insufficient for effective selection.

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