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

Annotations already indicate the tool is read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond 'by category'. No contradictions with 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, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. Every word is purposeful: verb, object, and qualifier.

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?

Description is minimal but sufficient for a simple query tool with an output schema. It doesn't detail return structure, but output schema likely covers that. For a tool with optional filtering parameters, the high-level purpose is clear 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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for all four parameters (category, sort_by, limit, include_sparkline). The description does not augment the schema's parameter explanations; it merely restates the category filter. 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 action ('Get'), the resource ('cryptocurrency market data'), and the scope ('by category'). It effectively differentiates from sibling tools like crypto.coin.detail or crypto.price.current by specifying the aggregated market overview focus.

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 when category-based market data is needed, but it does not explicitly articulate when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No guidance on prerequisites or excluded scenarios.

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