get_coin_markets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the plan requirement, but fails to describe other critical behaviors: whether this is a read-only operation, if it has rate limits, what the output format looks like (e.g., list of markets with details), or any pagination behavior implied by the 'limit' and 'offset' parameters. For a tool with 6 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences: one stating the purpose and another noting the plan requirement. It's front-loaded with the core function, and the second sentence adds necessary context without redundancy. 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 complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., read-only status, rate limits), output format, and usage guidelines relative to siblings. While the schema covers parameters well, the description doesn't compensate for missing annotation and output schema context, leaving gaps for an AI 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly (e.g., 'uuid' for the coin, 'limit' for pagination). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't clarify parameter relationships, usage examples, or edge cases. This meets the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 markets on different exchanges that trade a specific coin.' It specifies the verb ('find') and resource ('markets'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_markets' (general markets) or 'get_coin_exchanges' (exchanges for a coin). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_exchange_markets' (markets on a specific exchange), which slightly reduces clarity.

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. It mentions a plan requirement ('ultra plan or higher'), but doesn't explain when to choose this over siblings like 'get_markets' (all markets) or 'get_coin_exchanges' (exchanges for a coin). Without explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives, usage context is minimal.

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