get-coin-avg-price

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the basic operation. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, error handling, data freshness, or whether it's a read-only operation (implied but not explicit). For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 zero waste. It front-loads the core purpose and includes essential details without redundancy, 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?

Given 2 parameters with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally complete for a simple lookup tool. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it lacks details on return values, error cases, or operational constraints, leaving room for improvement.

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 already documents both parameters fully. The description adds marginal value by clarifying that 'coinId' is a 'unique identifier' and 'timestamp' is for a 'specific date', but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'historical average price for a specific cryptocurrency', with specificity about 'unique identifier and a specific date'. It distinguishes from obvious siblings like 'get-coin-by-id' (general info) and 'get-coin-exchange-price' (current exchange price), though not explicitly named.

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 for historical price lookup by date, suggesting when to use it (for average price at a timestamp). However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like 'get-coin-exchange-price' for current prices, leaving some ambiguity.

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