system_info

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It states the tool is a reference doc, makes no API call, consumes no credits, and lists the content of each action. This is transparent and honest. It does not describe the response format, but for a documentation lookup the key facts are covered.

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 well-organized with a clear lead statement and bullet points for each action. Every line earns its place, with no redundancy or filler. It is appropriately sized for the complexity.

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 simplicity, the description covers essentials: what it is, no API call, and the specific content of each action. The schema handles parameters. It could mention the response format or the 'context' echo, but these are minor given the reference nature.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are described. The description adds value by explaining what each action value returns (e.g., 'Complete error code table', 'Credit charging structure'), going beyond bare enum labels. This helps the agent select the correct action.

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 tool is 'CryptoAPIs reference documentation' and lists specific topics it covers (blockchains, errors, credits, callbacks, limits). This distinguishes it from the sibling market data tools, which are about live data. The resource and scope are unmistakable.

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?

It explicitly says 'no API call, no credits consumed', which immediately signals when to use this for reference lookups. It also details what each action returns, implying the appropriate contexts for choosing this tool over live-data siblings. No explicit exclusions or alternatives are given, but the context is clear.

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