crypto_portfolio

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Mentions 'real-time' and external source 'CoinGecko' but omits critical behavioral details: authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling for API failures, data freshness guarantees, or response format structure.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with key information. Minor deduction for the parenthetical '(no fake numbers)' which consumes space without conveying technical constraints or behavior.

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?

Tool has low complexity (1 optional parameter) but no output schema or annotations. Description identifies the data source but fails to describe return value structure, format, or error conditions. Adequate but gaps remain for integration reliability.

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% (the 'coins' parameter is fully documented with type, format, and defaults). Description adds no parameter-specific guidance, but baseline 3 is appropriate when schema documentation is complete.

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?

States specific verb (Get) and resource (crypto portfolio value) with clear source (CoinGecko). Distinguishes effectively from business-oriented siblings (revenue, bounties, PR tools). Minor deduction for the informal parenthetical '(no fake numbers)' which adds no technical clarity.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites (e.g., CoinGecko API availability, rate limit considerations). The agent must infer applicability from the tool name alone.

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