get_exchanges

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 ranking behavior and a plan requirement, which are useful. However, it doesn't cover other key traits like pagination behavior (implied by parameters but not described), rate limits, error handling, or response format. This leaves gaps for a tool with 6 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and ranking, followed by the plan requirement. It's efficient with minimal waste, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating behavioral details).

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 complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It covers purpose and a plan requirement but lacks details on output format, pagination rules, error cases, and full behavioral context. This is adequate for a basic read operation but has clear gaps.

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 fully documents all 6 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining interactions between parameters (e.g., how filters affect pagination). This meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'list of exchanges' with specific ranking criteria ('ranked based on their trading volume in the last 24 hours'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_exchange' (singular) and 'get_exchange_coins' but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_exchanges_index' which might be similar.

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 for retrieving ranked exchanges and mentions a plan requirement ('ultra plan or higher'), but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_exchange' for single exchange details or 'get_exchanges_index' for indexing. The context is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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