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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It implies a read-only price lookup but never states side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or whether a missing symbol is an error. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in one sentence, followed by a compact Args block. Every line earns its place; there is no filler, though the formatting is slightly verbose for two parameters.

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 2-parameter read tool the description covers purpose and both parameters adequately. With no output schema, however, it says nothing about what a quote returns (price field, base/quote pairing), leaving a real gap an agent would want closed.

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 coverage the description must compensate, and it largely does: it documents both parameters' comma-separated string format and gives concrete examples (btc,eth,sol / usd,eur,pen). It omits the fact that monedas defaults to usd, which the schema carries but never explains.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb+resource: fetching the market quote (cotización de mercado) for one or more symbols. It is clearly distinguishable from blockchain siblings like saldo, transaccion, estado, though it never explicitly names or contrasts 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?

There is no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. Usage is only implied by the tool name and resource ('market quote').

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