get_crypto_news

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it sources from multiple providers and mentions the credit cost, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that it's read-only, nor does it mention rate limits, input validation behavior, or what happens with empty queries. The 'retrieve' verb implies a non-destructive operation, but more transparency would be better.

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 concise and well-structured. The main purpose is stated in one sentence, followed by a compact args list and a cost note. Every line earns its place with no fluff. The format is scannable and front-loaded.

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 simple, optional-parameter news retrieval tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, parameters with valid values, and cost. It doesn't describe return values, but the existence of an output schema mitigates that need. A minor gap is not mentioning whether the category filter is case-sensitive or how to combine query and category, but overall it is sufficiently complete.

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?

Despite the schema reporting 0% coverage, the description provides a detailed 'Args' section for both query and category. It explains the purpose of 'query' with an example and lists all valid category values (general, bitcoin, ethereum, defi, nft, regulation, exchange, mining). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema definition, which only says they are optional strings or nulls.

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 uses a specific verb 'Retrieve' and clearly identifies the resource: 'cryptocurrency and blockchain-related news and market information'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools, which are all about address/transaction/sanctions screening. No ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 clearly implies the tool is for retrieving crypto news, and no sibling tool overlaps with this function. It provides context (multiple sources) but doesn't explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives or mention exclusions. However, the lack of overlapping sibling tools makes the usage context clear.

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