get-coin-exchange-price

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't mention any behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, error conditions, or what format the historical data returns. For a tool with 4 required parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant gaps.

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 gets straight to the point. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward data retrieval tool, though it could potentially benefit from slightly more detail given the lack of annotations and output schema.

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?

For a tool with 4 required parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and many similar siblings, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how to interpret the parameters, or how this differs from other price-related tools. The agent would struggle to use this effectively without additional context.

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 all parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions 'historical price data' which implies the timestamp parameter is for historical lookups, but doesn't provide additional context about parameter formats, valid values, or relationships between parameters.

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 action ('Get historical price data') and resource ('specific cryptocurrency on a particular exchange'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get-coin-avg-price' or 'get-coin-chart-by-id', which might also provide price-related data.

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 like 'get-coin-avg-price' (which might provide aggregated prices) or 'get-coin-chart-by-id' (which might provide chart data). It mentions 'historical price data' but doesn't specify what makes this tool unique among the many price-related siblings.

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