priceConversion

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions conversion but doesn't specify critical behaviors like data sources (e.g., real-time vs. historical rates), rate limits, error handling, or output format (e.g., whether it returns a single value or multiple conversions). For a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it operates.

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, clear sentence that efficiently states the core function without unnecessary details. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and avoids redundancy. However, given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, no output schema), it might be overly concise, missing needed explanatory context.

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's complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover parameter meanings, behavioral traits like data freshness or limits, or output structure. Without this context, an agent would struggle to use the tool correctly, especially with sibling tools offering overlapping functionality.

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 none of the 6 parameters are documented in the schema. The description only vaguely implies parameters like 'amount' and 'convert' but doesn't explain their semantics, such as what 'id' vs. 'symbol' represent, the format of 'time', or how 'convert_id' differs from 'convert'. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving parameters largely unexplained.

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 tool's purpose: converting an amount between currencies (cryptocurrency or fiat). It specifies the verb ('convert') and resource ('amount of one cryptocurrency or fiat currency'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'cryptoQuotesLatest' or 'globalMetricsLatest' that might provide related pricing data, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context for currency conversion, or compare to sibling tools such as 'cryptoQuotesLatest' for single-currency quotes or 'fiatMap' for fiat currency details. Without any usage context, the agent must infer applicability from the purpose alone.

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