get_coin

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 states the tool 'finds information' but doesn't specify what type of information (e.g., price, market cap, details), whether it's a read-only operation, any rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond basic retrieval.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence: 'Find information about a specific coin.' It's front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes to the core purpose without redundancy.

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 complexity of a coin information tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't clarify what 'information' includes, how results are structured, or handle nuances like missing data. With many sibling tools, more context is needed to avoid confusion and ensure correct tool selection.

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?

The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the input schema provides. With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all three parameters (uuid, referenceCurrencyUuid, timePeriod) with details like defaults, allowed values, and examples. The description doesn't explain parameter interactions or usage context, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 as 'Find information about a specific coin' with a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('coin'), making it understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'get_coins' (plural) or 'get_coin_price', which might retrieve similar or overlapping data, leaving some ambiguity about its unique scope.

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. With many sibling tools like 'get_coin_price', 'get_coins', and 'get_coin_market_cap_history', it's unclear if this tool is for general coin details, specific metrics, or something else. No exclusions, prerequisites, or context for selection are mentioned.

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