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

Annotations are empty, so the description carries the burden. It indicates the tool is '[Public]' and reads from 'the active payment gateway'. This provides basic behavioral context (public, read operation) but lacks details like rate limits or pagination. It is adequate for a simple list tool.

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, focused sentence. It front-loads the '[Public]' label and immediately defines the tool's purpose and output format. There is no redundancy or wasted words.

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 output schema, no nested objects, and zero parameters, the description is fairly complete. It specifies the output format, source, and usage guidance. It could optionally mention that it returns all available pairs without filtering, but this is a minor gap.

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 no parameters, so baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by explaining the output format (BLOCKCHAIN-CURRENCY) and its intended use as a currency value in other tools. This is valuable beyond the 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 the verb 'get', the resource 'available crypto currency pairs', the format 'BLOCKCHAIN-CURRENCY (e.g. ETH-USDT)', and the source 'active payment gateway'. It also explicitly connects to usage in sibling tools 'create-topup-invoice' and 'select-currency', distinguishing its purpose.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: to get pairs for use in create-topup-invoice and select-currency. While it doesn't say when not to use, the context is clear. No alternatives are mentioned, but the siblings are mostly unrelated, making usage implicit.

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