get-market-cap

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get global market data' provides no information about what the tool actually returns (format, structure, units), whether it requires authentication, rate limits, data freshness, or any behavioral characteristics. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this description fails to provide any meaningful behavioral context.

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?

While technically concise with only 4 words, this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description fails to communicate essential information about what the tool does, making its brevity a liability. Every word should earn its place, but here the words don't provide enough value to justify their inclusion.

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 complexity of financial market data tools and the complete lack of annotations and output schema, the description is woefully incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'market data' means, what format it returns, whether it's real-time or historical, what scope 'global' encompasses, or how this differs from numerous sibling tools. For a tool in a crowded namespace with no structured metadata, this description provides inadequate 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?

The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema). The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter documentation gaps. While the description doesn't mention the lack of parameters, this isn't required when the schema fully documents the empty parameter set. The baseline for 0 parameters with high schema coverage is 4.

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 'Get global market data' is vague and tautological - it essentially restates the tool name 'get-market-cap' without specifying what 'market data' means or what resource is being retrieved. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get-coins', 'get-exchanges', or 'get-currencies' which also retrieve market-related data. The purpose is unclear beyond a generic data retrieval statement.

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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools that retrieve market data (get-coins, get-exchanges, get-currencies, get-ticker-markets, etc.), there's no indication whether this tool provides market capitalization specifically, aggregated data, or some other subset. The agent has no way to determine when this tool is appropriate versus other market data tools.

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