get_exchange_coins

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 the ultra plan requirement (authentication/access level), which is valuable behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention pagination behavior (implied by limit/offset parameters), rate limits, error conditions, or what the response looks like (no output schema). The description adds some value but leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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?

Two concise sentences with zero waste. First sentence states the core purpose, second sentence provides critical prerequisite information. Perfectly front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 6 parameters (1 required), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and access requirement but doesn't explain the return format, pagination strategy, or error handling. For a data retrieval tool with multiple parameters and no output schema, more context about what to expect would be helpful.

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 6 parameters thoroughly with descriptions, defaults, and constraints. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting, though the description could have explained the relationship between parameters like uuid (required exchange identifier) and others.

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 purpose: 'Find coins listed on a specific exchange' (verb+resource). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_coins' (general coins) and 'get_exchange' (exchange details) by specifying exchange-specific coin listing. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_exchange_markets' or 'get_exchange_new_coins' which might have overlapping scope.

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 some usage context by stating the ultra plan requirement, which is a prerequisite. However, it doesn't explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_coins' (all coins) or 'get_exchange_markets' (markets on exchange). No explicit when-not-to-use or comparison with sibling tools is provided.

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