Crypto Prices

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

No annotations provided, but description explains API tier constraint and parameter behavior. Does not disclose rate limits or authentication, but sufficient for basic usage.

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, front-loaded with core purpose, no extraneous text. Efficient and clear.

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?

Explains days and interval in detail, but omits explanation for id (required) and vs. No output schema description, leaving return format unspecified.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, explains days and interval meaningfully. However, id and vs remain unexplained; days schema says integer but description allows 'max' (potential contradiction).

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?

Clearly states 'Historical price series for a coin', specifying the action and resource. Differentiates from siblings like crypto_prices (current prices) and crypto_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?

Provides parameter constraints (allowed days values, interval options, free tier limitation). Lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use compared to 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 burden. It mentions included data but does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, data freshness, or whether the snapshot is static or live. More transparency is needed.

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 key information. It contains no unnecessary words and is easy to parse.

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?

Given no parameters or output schema, the description lists the included metrics, but does not describe the response format, pagination, or unit of measurement. It is adequate but could be more complete for an agent to understand the return structure.

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?

There are no parameters required (empty schema, 0 params). The description implies no configuration is needed, which is sufficient. With 0 parameters, baseline is 4, and the description adds clarity that no input is required.

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 a global crypto market snapshot with specific metrics (market cap, volume, BTC dominance, active cryptocurrencies). This differentiates it from sibling tools like crypto_history, crypto_prices, etc., which focus on specific aspects.

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?

Usage context is implied through the description (broad market overview) and sibling names, but no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. The agent must infer when to use this versus sibling tools.

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 present, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that returns include price, 24h change, market cap, volume. However, it does not mention data freshness, rate limits, or any potential side effects. For a read-only tool, this is adequate but could be improved by stating it fetches live data.

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 extremely concise: two sentences. First sentence states purpose, second covers parameters and return. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy. The most important info (purpose, ID requirement, sibling reference) 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?

Given lack of output schema, the description explains return fields (price, 24h change, market cap, volume). It covers essential input details and provides a sibling reference for alternative. This is sufficient for a simple price lookup tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates. It explains the `ids` parameter must be CoinGecko IDs and suggests `crypto_search` as alternative. It explains the `vs` parameter with default and examples. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw 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 clearly states 'Current prices for one or more cryptocurrencies' and explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool `crypto_search` by specifying when to use each. The verb 'prices' and resource 'cryptocurrencies' are specific, and the mention of CoinGecko IDs adds precision.

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 clear when-to-use guidance, including when to use `crypto_search` instead. It explains the `vs` parameter options and defaults. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide alternative scenarios beyond the sibling reference.

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?

Discloses return behavior (up to 10 matches, returns ids) without annotations. Could mention failure modes, but adequate for a simple search.

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, front-loaded with action, no wasted words. Every sentence 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 simple search with one param and no output schema, the description is complete: purpose, return format, and usage hint for sibling tool.

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?

Single parameter 'query' is explained as name or symbol input, adding meaning beyond the schema which has no description.

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 it searches by name or symbol and returns up to 10 matches with CoinGecko IDs, distinguishing it from siblings like crypto_prices.

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?

Provides clear usage context: use it to find coin IDs before calling crypto_prices. No explicit when-not, but sibling tools have distinct purposes.

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 exist, so the description must carry the full transparency burden. It discloses that the data is from the last 24h and based on community/search-volume, but does not specify the number of coins returned, data freshness guarantees, or whether a full list is provided. Some behaviors remain unspecified.

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 that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without any superfluous information. Every word adds value.

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?

Despite having no parameters and no output schema, the description fails to specify the structure of the returned data (e.g., fields like name, symbol, market cap rank). Users are left guessing what 'top trending coins' includes. This lack of completeness could lead to incorrect expectations for an AI agent selecting the tool.

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 has zero parameters, so schema description coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter details, and the baseline of 4 is appropriate. It correctly implies no user input is needed.

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 returns 'top trending coins' based on 'community/search-volume signal' in the last 24 hours, specifying the source (CoinGecko) and the verb ('trending'). This distinguishes it from siblings like crypto_prices (current prices) or crypto_search (search by query).

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 use for getting current trending coins without parameters, and the sibling tools make alternatives obvious. However, no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, but the tool is self-explanatory due to its simplicity.

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