cmc_cmc20_latest

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the shape of what is returned (index value plus constituents and weights), which is useful, but says nothing about caching freshness, rate limits, auth requirements, or whether the 'latest' snapshot is real-time vs delayed.

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?

A single sentence with zero filler, front-loading the verb and resource and enumerating the returned fields compactly. Nothing to trim.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value details need not be restated, and a zero-parameter read tool has a low completeness bar. The definition covers the essentials; only the lack of freshness/rate behavior keeps it from a 5.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameters to disambiguate and the description correctly avoids inventing any.

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 a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('CoinMarketCap 20 Index'), and the exact payload ('value, constituents, and constituent weights'). The 'latest' qualifier implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling cmc_cmc20_historical, though the differentiation is by name convention rather than explicit 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?

Usage is implied — fetch current CMC20 index data — but the description gives no explicit when-to-use conditions, no mention of the historical sibling as the alternative for past values, and no prerequisites. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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