get_crypto_quote

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses 15-minute caching, outbound-gating, per-ticker partial failure, and the fact that this is quote-only rather than a portfolio operation. This is strong behavioral transparency.

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 compact and to the point, with no filler or redundant wording. Every sentence adds meaningful information about scope, behavior, or failure semantics.

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 description covers scope and partial failure well, but it omits the meaning of cache_ttl_minutes and provides no output-shape information. Since there is no output schema, the lack of return-value context leaves some 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 tickers parameter is reasonably described in the schema, but cache_ttl_minutes only has a type and no description. The description mentions '15-minute cache' but never explains that the parameter overrides this TTL, leaving its semantics undocumented. Schema coverage is only 50% and the description does not compensate for the missing parameter.

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 specifies the tool fetches spot crypto quotes in BRL via Mercado Bitcoin, with concrete examples (BTC, ETH, SOL). It also distinguishes scope by noting crypto is not yet a tracked portfolio asset class, which helps separate it from portfolio-related 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?

It provides practical usage context: quote-only, BRL-denominated, cache behavior, outbound-gated, and partial failure tolerance. It does not explicitly name an alternative for non-crypto market data, but the 'Quote only' and 'not yet a tracked portfolio asset_class' phrasing conveys appropriate boundaries.

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