market_get_top_tokens

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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior, so the description doesn't need to restate those. It adds value by specifying the data source (CoinGecko) and enumerating the return fields, giving the agent a clear expectation of the output. It doesn't mention rate limits or data freshness, but for a simple read-only list tool, this is sufficient.

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 two concise sentences with no redundant information. It front-loads the primary action and then lists the output fields efficiently, making every sentence earn its place.

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 simple read-only nature, full schema descriptions, and strong annotations, the description is largely complete. It covers the tool's purpose and return fields, while the schema handles parameter details. A minor gap is not describing the effect of the 'order' or 'category' parameters in prose, but this is acceptable since they are documented in the schema.

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?

All parameters (limit, order, category) have full descriptions in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description itself does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 retrieves top cryptocurrencies by market capitalization from CoinGecko, with a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('top cryptocurrencies'). It lists the returned fields, making its purpose distinct from siblings like market_get_top_protocols or market_get_token_price.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: whenever a list of top cryptocurrencies by market cap is needed. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the clarity of the purpose avoids ambiguity. It could be improved by noting not to use it for single-token queries or protocol data.

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