crypto_rates

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that prices are returned, which implies a read operation, but it does not describe output format, rate limits, error behavior, or limitations relative to sibling tools. The description adds little beyond the 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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the primary purpose. It contains no filler or redundant phrasing, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

The tool has 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description only covers the basic purpose. Missing details include the meaning of 'detailed', usage context vs. siblings, and expected return shape. The description is too sparse to fully guide an agent in selecting and invoking the tool correctly.

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% (both params have description fields), so baseline is 3. The description adds context that 'currency' is the base currency, but the 'detailed' parameter has an empty description and is not explained anywhere. The description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 states a clear action ('Returns cryptocurrency prices') and the resource ('cryptocurrency prices') based on a base currency. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like coins_price_list, but the wording is specific enough to understand the core function.

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 (e.g., coins_price_list, fiat_supported). There is no mention of preferred scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on the minimal description.

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