classify_crypto_asset

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It discloses that the tool returns JSON with structured assessment, regulation refs, and recommended actions, but does not detail side effects, authentication requirements beyond a mention of api_key for Pro+ features, or rate limits. It is adequate but not explicit about behavioral traits.

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 extremely concise: one line for purpose, bullet-style args, and return. It is front-loaded with the key verb and resource, with no wasted words. Every sentence adds value.

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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It sufficiently covers the input parameters, purpose, and output structure. The tool is simple and the description is complete for an AI agent to understand usage.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaningful context for both parameters: query is described as optional (regulation ref, identifier, or input data) and api_key as optional for Pro+ features. This goes beyond the bare schema, though more detail on input formats would improve it.

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 classifies a crypto-asset under MiCA, listing specific categories (ART, EMT, other CA, MiFID-II out). This verb+resource combination is specific and distinguishes it from siblings focused on AML, authorisation, or whitepapers.

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 when classification under MiCA is needed, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or context for alternative tools are provided.

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