get_stats_for_selection_of_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 states the tool 'gets stats' but doesn't clarify what stats are returned (e.g., format, data types), whether it's a read-only operation, if there are rate limits, or how errors are handled. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. However, it's overly concise to the point of under-specification, lacking necessary details about purpose and usage that would make it more helpful.

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 complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and many sibling tools), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what stats are returned, how results are structured, or when to use this tool over alternatives. This leaves the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively without relying heavily on the input schema.

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 4 parameters with clear descriptions, defaults, and examples. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying that parameters are used to select coins, which is already covered in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 'Get stats for a selection of coins' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name. While it indicates the action ('get stats') and resource ('selection of coins'), it lacks specificity about what kind of stats are retrieved (e.g., price, market cap, volume) and doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_coin', 'get_coins', or 'get_coin_price_history' that might also retrieve coin statistics.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context for selection (e.g., filtering by UUIDs or tags), or comparisons to sibling tools like 'get_coins' or 'get_coin_markets'. Without this, an agent must infer usage from parameters alone.

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