get_coin_exchanges

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 the 'ultra' plan requirement, which is a useful auth/access constraint. However, it lacks details on rate limits, pagination behavior (implied by limit/offset parameters but not explained), response format, or error handling. For a tool with 6 parameters and no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds critical context (plan requirement). There's no wasted text, and both sentences earn their place by providing essential information. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from constraints.

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 moderate complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and a key constraint (plan requirement) but lacks details on output format, pagination behavior, or error handling. Without annotations or output schema, the description should do more to explain what the tool returns and how to interpret results, leaving room for improvement.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, providing clear documentation for all 6 parameters (e.g., 'uuid' for the coin, 'limit' for pagination). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as examples or additional constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't need to.

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: 'Find exchanges where a specific coin can be traded.' It specifies the verb ('find') and resource ('exchanges'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_exchanges' (general exchange list) or 'get_coin_markets' (markets for a coin). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_exchange_coins' (coins on an exchange), which could be a related inverse operation.

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 some usage context by stating 'This endpoint requires the **ultra** plan or higher,' which is a prerequisite. However, it doesn't offer guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_coin_markets' or 'get_exchange_coins,' nor does it specify scenarios where it's preferred or excluded. The usage is implied but not explicitly detailed.

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