get_coin_modifiers

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 mentions a plan requirement, which is useful, but fails to describe key behaviors such as whether this is a read-only operation, what the output format looks like (e.g., list of modifiers with balances), or any rate limits or error conditions. For a tool with 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 two sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose, and the second adds a critical constraint (plan requirement). It is front-loaded and appropriately sized, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a tool with parameters that fetches data (likely a list of modifiers), the description is incomplete. It misses details like the return format, whether it's paginated (implied by parameters but not stated), and behavioral traits. For a tool in a context with many siblings, more guidance is needed to ensure correct usage.

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 input schema fully documents the parameters (uuid, limit, offset). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining what 'modifiers' are or how pagination works in this context. Baseline 3 is appropriate 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 action ('Get') and resource ('modifiers of a coin's supply and their balance'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_coin_supply_history' or 'get_coin', which might provide related data, leaving room for ambiguity about when to choose this specific tool.

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 includes a prerequisite ('requires the **ultra** plan or higher'), which provides some context for usage. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_coin' or 'get_coin_supply_history', leaving the agent to infer based on tool names alone.

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