getCryptoMetadata

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only implies read-only access by stating 'static metadata', but does not mention rate limits, authentication, or how multiple symbols are handled. Insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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 efficient sentence that is front-loaded. It contains no wasted words, though it could benefit from additional detail without being verbose.

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 the tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain return format, parameter usage, or behavioral nuances, making it incomplete for an agent to use effectively.

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 0%, meaning the description adds no information about the six parameters (symbol, id, slug, address, aux, skip_invalid). The description fails to compensate for this gap, leaving their semantics entirely unclear.

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 returns static metadata including logo, description, and URLs. The verb 'returns' and resource 'static metadata for one or more cryptocurrencies' are specific. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like cryptoCurrencyMap which also return metadata-like information.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., cryptoCurrencyMap, cryptoQuotesLatest). No context about prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess.

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