get_coins

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 does reveal that the response includes both a coin list and statistics, and mentions the default ordering behavior. However, it doesn't cover important aspects like pagination behavior (implied by limit/offset parameters but not explained), rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. The behavioral information is incomplete for a tool with 10 parameters.

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 concise with two sentences that efficiently convey the core functionality. The first sentence states the primary purpose and ordering behavior, while the second adds important context about the response format. There's no unnecessary repetition or fluff, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.

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?

For a tool with 10 parameters and no output schema, the description provides basic but incomplete context. It explains what the tool returns (list + statistics) but doesn't detail the response structure, pagination behavior, or how to interpret the statistics. With no annotations and no output schema, more comprehensive behavioral and output information would be helpful for proper tool invocation.

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 10 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal parameter semantics - it mentions the default ordering by rank/marketcap (related to orderBy parameter) and references 24-hour volume statistics (related to timePeriod parameter). However, it doesn't provide additional context beyond what's already in the comprehensive schema descriptions.

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: 'Get a list of coins' with additional statistics. It specifies the default ordering by rank/marketcap and mentions the inclusion of statistics like 24-hour volume. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_coins_index' or 'get_stats_for_selection_of_coins' which might have overlapping functionality.

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. With many sibling tools available (like get_coin, get_coins_index, get_stats_for_selection_of_coins), there's no indication of when this general list tool is preferred over more specific ones. The description only explains what the tool does, not when it should be selected.

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