get_exchange_new_coins

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions retrieving 'latest coin listings' and references a web page, but doesn't describe key traits like whether it's read-only, if it has rate limits, what the output format is, or any authentication needs. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, with the core purpose stated in the first sentence. The second sentence provides contextual information but could be considered slightly extraneous. Overall, it's efficient with minimal waste, though not perfectly streamlined.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It clarifies the purpose and usage context but lacks details on behavior, output, and differentiation from siblings. Without annotations or an output schema, more guidance would be helpful for an AI agent to use it effectively.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, fully documenting both parameters ('referenceCurrencyUuid' and 'uuid'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline score is 3, as the schema already provides adequate parameter information.

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: 'Retrieve the latest coin listings on a specific exchange.' It specifies the verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('latest coin listings on a specific exchange'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_exchange_coins' or 'get_exchange_markets', which might also retrieve exchange-related coin data, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 context by mentioning 'latest coin listings' and linking to a specific page for 'new coins,' suggesting it's for recent additions. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'get_exchange_coins' or 'get_coins'), and doesn't state any exclusions or prerequisites. This leaves some ambiguity for an AI agent.

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