get_coin_price

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it returns a single price nearest to the requested time (not exact), includes a timestamp, and defaults to latest price if timestamp is omitted. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs, which are important for a price-fetching tool.

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, using two sentences that directly explain the tool's function and response. There is no wasted language, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from behavior.

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 and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and key behavior (nearest price, timestamp inclusion, default to latest), but lacks details on output format, error cases, or performance constraints, which are needed for full contextual understanding in a financial API tool.

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. The description adds minimal value by mentioning the timestamp's default behavior and that the response includes a timestamp, but does not provide additional meaning beyond what the schema specifies. Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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: to request a price for a specific coin at a specific time, returning a single price with timestamp. It uses specific verbs ('requested', 'get') and identifies the resource ('coin'), but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_coin_fiat_price' or 'get_coin_price_history', which 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 implies usage by mentioning the timestamp parameter's default behavior (latest price if not provided), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_coin_fiat_price' or 'get_coin_price_history'. It provides some context but lacks clear guidance on exclusions or comparisons.

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