coingecko_chain

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that sections are omitted when not present, which is a key behavioral trait. It also mentions support for the vs_currency enum, but does not cover possible errors, rate limits, or permission requirements. However, for a read-only data retrieval tool, the disclosure is sufficient.

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 highly concise at three sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, the second clarifies output behavior (omission of sections), and the third notes enum support. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 tool's complexity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It explains the output behavior (sections omitted when absent) and relevant parameter detail (vs_currency enum). However, it does not explain what sections typically contain, which could aid understanding.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds value by noting that the endpoint supports the documented vs_currency enum and provides an example value for id ('ethereum'). This enhances understanding beyond the schema alone.

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 that the tool returns normalized sections from a CoinGecko public chain detail page. The name and description together specify verb+resource (chain detail) and differentiate it from siblings like coingecko_chains (list) and coingecko_coin (coin detail).

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 does not mention common use cases or exclusion criteria, which is a significant gap given the many coingecko sibling tools.

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