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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that rows are 'normalized' and drawn from 'public' tables, which is mild context, but it says nothing about data freshness, pagination, or the caps implied by the limit parameter. With annotations carrying the load, a 3 is appropriate.

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. It is efficient, though it is terse enough that no scope or usage detail is offered at all.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is unnecessary, and all four parameters are fully documented in the schema with annotations covering the read-only/open-world profile. The remaining gap is the absence of any usage context or explanation of what a 'treasury' row semantically contains, which is minor given the structured data available.

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 the schema fully documents asset, limit, holder_type, and vs_currency including allowed values. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, which matches the baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Returns') and a specific resource ('CoinGecko's public crypto treasuries tables'), so an agent can identify it as the treasuries data source. It does not need sibling differentiation because no other coingecko tool covers treasuries, but the phrasing 'normalized entity rows' is jargon that slightly obscures what the rows actually represent (holders and their holdings).

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist within the large coingecko_* family. An agent must infer usage purely from the resource name and the parameter set.

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