cmc_crypto_map

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It gives some transparency: the tool is a resolver/mapper and hints at ordering by CMC ID vs rank. However, it doesn't disclose whether results are cached, whether it pages over the full asset universe, or what a missing symbol returns — important for a lookup tool with 0% schema description coverage.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose followed immediately by the when-to-use guidance. No filler.

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?

The tool has an output schema (so return values are covered) but the description fails to explain any of its 5 parameters, which is the bulk of the tool's surface. For a lookup tool with zero annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description is too thin to be complete.

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%, so description must compensate — and it doesn't. None of the five parameters (sort, limit, start, symbols, listing_status) are explained in the description. The enum for sort and listing_status is only inferable from the schema. The description leaves parameter semantics entirely unspecified.

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 'Resolve' and resource 'CoinMarketCap cryptocurrency IDs and canonical identifiers' — an agent knows it maps symbols/assets to CMC IDs. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling tool it differs from, but the purpose is clear.

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 clear usage context: 'Prefer this tool before symbol-based research when an asset's CMC ID is not already known.' This tells the agent exactly when this tool is the right first step, though no alternative sibling is named as a fallback.

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