get_reference_currencies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the response includes essentials like symbol and sign, which adds value beyond the input schema. However, it lacks critical behavioral details: no mention of pagination behavior (implied by limit/offset but not described), rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. For a read operation with parameters, this is inadequate.

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 front-load the purpose and key response details. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating purpose from response format). It efficiently covers core aspects without redundancy.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 3 parameters, the description is incomplete. It covers purpose and response essentials but misses behavioral context (e.g., pagination, errors), usage guidelines, and output details beyond symbol/sign. For a tool with filtering and pagination, this leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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 parameters (types, limit, offset). The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond implying the response includes symbol and sign. It doesn't explain how 'types' filtering relates to the reference use-case or default behaviors. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 reference currencies' with the specific use-case 'which can be used as reference for coins.' It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on reference currencies rather than coins, markets, exchanges, or other crypto data. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential similar tools (none in siblings) beyond the reference use-case.

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. It mentions the use-case 'reference for coins' but doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or compare to sibling tools like 'get_coins' or 'get_coin_price'. Without annotations, this leaves the agent guessing about context or constraints.

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