get_exchanges_index

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 adds context about the 'ultra plan or higher' requirement, which is useful for authentication/access needs. However, it doesn't describe other behavioral traits like rate limits, pagination, or what the output looks like (e.g., list format, fields). This leaves gaps, but the plan requirement adds some value beyond basic purpose.

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 with two sentences that each add value: the first states the purpose, and the second specifies the plan requirement. It's front-loaded with the core functionality. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly mentioning output or usage scenarios, but it's efficient with zero waste.

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 low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is somewhat complete by covering purpose and access requirements. However, it lacks details on output format or behavioral aspects like error handling, which could be helpful for an AI agent. It's adequate but has clear gaps in providing a full context for 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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, which is efficient. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters, as it avoids unnecessary details and focuses on the tool's purpose and constraints.

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: 'List of all exchanges currently available on Coinranking, for indexing purposes.' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('exchanges'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_exchange' (singular) and 'get_exchange_coins'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_exchanges' (plural), which might be similar, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 'for indexing purposes' and noting the plan requirement ('ultra plan or higher'), which implies when it might be used. However, it doesn't explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_exchanges' or other exchange-related tools, leaving usage somewhat implied rather than clearly defined.

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