get_coin_gains_and_losses

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' data, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what the output format looks like (since there's no output schema). For a tool with 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, with the core purpose stated in the first sentence. The second sentence adds contextual usage but is somewhat tangential. Overall, it's efficient with minimal waste, though it could be slightly more structured by integrating the context more directly.

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 (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on output format, error conditions, or behavioral traits like pagination (implied by 'limit' but not explained). For a tool that returns financial data over intervals, more context on what 'gains and losses' entails (e.g., percentage changes, time frames) would be helpful to the agent.

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 specific parameter semantics beyond what's in the input schema, which has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all parameters (e.g., 'uuid' explains how to find it, 'interval' lists allowed values). Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score is 3, as the description doesn't compensate with additional insights but also doesn't detract from the schema's documentation.

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 gains and losses data for a specific coin over different time intervals.' It specifies the verb ('find'), resource ('gains and losses data'), and scope ('specific coin,' 'different time intervals'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_coin_price_history' or 'get_coin_ohlc_data,' which might also involve time-series data, though the focus on 'gains and losses' is distinct.

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 minimal usage guidance. It mentions that 'On Coinranking we use this endpoint on our coin detail page,' which implies a context but doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., vs. 'get_coin_price_history' for raw prices). No explicit when/when-not instructions or prerequisites are given, leaving the agent with little direction on tool selection.

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