cmc_crypto_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions that IDs are preferred over symbols due to non-uniqueness, which is a useful behavioral note. But it doesn't disclose other critical traits: what happens with skip_invalid, rate limits, authentication needs, or return format details. With no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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 a single efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose. It avoids waste, though it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing conciseness.

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 complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, 0% schema coverage, but an output schema exists), the description is too sparse. It doesn't explain parameter usage, behavior with skip_invalid, or how results are returned. The output schema may cover return values, but the description still leaves critical gaps for correct invocation.

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 0%, and the description does not explain any of the four parameters (ids, slugs, symbols, skip_invalid). It only implies that ids and symbols are acceptable inputs and hints at preference for ids, but no meaning beyond that. With 0% coverage, the description must compensate but fails to do so adequately.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Get CoinMarketCap metadata for known cryptocurrencies.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like cmc_quotes_latest or cmc_listings_latest by focusing on metadata lookup, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. A 4 is appropriate since the purpose is clear but not fully differentiated from siblings.

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 by saying 'Numeric CMC IDs are preferred because symbols are not globally unique,' which gives some guidance on identifier choice. However, it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like cmc_crypto_map or cmc_quotes_latest. Implied usage only, so a 3.

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