vek-data

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the data source ('CoinGecko simple price'), which is useful, but says nothing about rate limits, API key/auth requirements, caching/freshness of 'current' prices, or failure behavior for unknown coin ids.

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 with zero waste, front-loading the resource ('Current coin market prices') before the implementation note. 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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain what is returned (a per-coin, per-quote-currency price map) and how missing ids are handled. It also omits the fact that both parameters are optional and what the defaults produce. For a tool with no annotations or output schema, this leaves real gaps.

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 both parameters ('vs' and 'ids') are already documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The description adds no format detail beyond the schema, only the upstream source, so it neither compensates nor detracts.

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 specific verb+resource: 'Current coin market prices'. This is clearly distinct from siblings crypto_news, get_balance, and get_block, so an agent can route to it without opening the schema. It doesn't explicitly name what it is not, but the resource is unambiguous.

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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives. 'Current' hints that this is a spot-price lookup versus historical data, but the agent must infer that. Nothing tells it when this tool is the right choice over the siblings.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the data channel (RSS) and the upstream publishers, which is useful, but says nothing about result freshness, pagination, failure modes, or whether an API key/network access is required.

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 no filler; the core purpose and data source come first. It is arguably too terse given the undocumented parameters, but every word present 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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, the definition leaves the agent guessing about result shape, headline count, source defaulting, and freshness. For a simple read tool this is recoverable, but the description does not close the gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It names three source values that map to the enum, but never explains the fourth enum value 'all' or what 'limit' controls (count of headlines? default value?). Half the parameter surface remains undocumented.

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+resource ('Latest crypto news headlines') and adds the delivery mechanism ('via RSS') plus named sources, so the agent immediately knows this is a news-fetch tool. It is trivially distinguishable from siblings coin_price, get_balance, and get_block, though it doesn't explicitly frame that contrast.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus alternatives, nor any notes on freshness, caching, or rate limits implied by 'Latest'. Usage is only inferred from the word 'Latest', which is weak context at best.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it discloses almost nothing beyond the resource itself. It omits whether the call requires auth/API key, whether there are rate limits, what happens for an address with no funds or a malformed address, and what form the returned balance takes (raw wei vs decimal, string vs number).

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 no filler; the scope and denomination are stated up front. It is efficient, though it is arguably too terse given the gaps it leaves on a 3-parameter tool.

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 annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the one-sentence description is not sufficient for an agent to call this confidently. It never specifies the return value semantics, the unit default, or the address format, all of which the agent must guess.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for three undocumented parameters. It only re-states the enum values for chain and unit as prose ('Base or Ethereum', 'ETH or USDC') without adding any new meaning, and it says nothing about the required address format or the default for the optional unit parameter.

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 specific resource (the balance of an address), the supported chains (Base, Ethereum), and the denomination (ETH, USDC), so an agent can tell it apart from coin_price, crypto_news, and get_block. It does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings, but the noun phrase is unambiguous.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, no alternatives named. The description never says which chain to prefer or when to pick ETH vs USDC, and it gives no hint about what happens if the optional unit parameter is omitted.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation and the listed return fields add useful context, but there is no explicit read-only statement, no rate-limit/permission context, and no explanation of what happens if the optional block parameter is omitted.

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 no wasted words. It efficiently names the action, chains, and returned fields.

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 description compensates for the missing output schema by listing return fields, which is useful for a simple read tool. But it omits default behavior for the optional block parameter and gives no usage context, leaving a gap for an agent deciding how to call it.

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 50%, and the description helps by naming Base and Ethereum, which corresponds to the chain enum. However, it adds little beyond the schema for the block parameter and does not clarify the default behavior when block is omitted.

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 specific verb and resource: get a block on Base or Ethereum, with the returned fields listed. The resource is distinct from the sibling tools coin_price, crypto_news, and get_balance, but the description does not explicitly differentiate from them.

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 given about when to use this tool, when not to use it, or which alternatives exist. The description only identifies the chains and returned fields, leaving usage entirely implicit.

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