get-coin-by-id

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves 'detailed information' but doesn't specify what that includes (e.g., price, market cap, metadata), whether it's a read-only operation (implied by 'Get'), any rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with external data sources.

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 that front-loads the core action ('Get detailed information'). It avoids unnecessary words and directly states the purpose. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly mentioning the parameters or output, though brevity is maintained.

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 a tool that likely returns complex cryptocurrency data, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' entails, potential response formats, or any behavioral traits like data freshness or source reliability. For a read operation with external dependencies, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 fully documents both parameters (coinId and currency). The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the coinId is used to fetch data, which is redundant with the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate or enhance parameter understanding.

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 detailed information') and resource ('specific cryptocurrency'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get-coins' (list) and 'get-coin-chart-by-id' (chart data) by focusing on detailed info for a single coin. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get-coin-avg-price' or 'get-coin-exchange-price', which might also retrieve specific coin data, leaving some sibling differentiation incomplete.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a coinId from '/coins'), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'get-coins' for lists or 'get-coin-avg-price' for aggregated data. Usage is implied only by the tool name and description, with no explicit context for selection.

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