system_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It explicitly discloses that no API call is made and no credits are consumed, and it details what each action returns. It does not mention response format or potential side effects, but for a pure documentation tool this 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 well-structured with a clear one-line summary followed by a bulleted list of actions. Each bullet is concise and informative, with no wasted words.

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 documentation tool with one enum parameter and no output schema, the description is fully complete. It covers all available actions, their content, and the tool's non-executing nature, leaving no ambiguity for an agent.

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 has 100% coverage, but the description adds significant meaning by detailing what each enum action returns (e.g., blockchains -> supported chains, errors -> error table, credits -> cost structure). This goes beyond the schema's generic description.

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 it is 'CryptoAPIs reference documentation' and enumerates the exact topics (blockchains, errors, credits, callbacks, limits). This distinguishes it from the sibling tool prepare_transactions_evm, which handles transaction preparation.

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 implies usage for retrieving reference information and explicitly notes 'no API call, no credits consumed', making it clear this is a documentation tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusions, only relying on the obvious contrast with the sibling.

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