Veroq

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses 'COST: 2 credits' and provides 'RETURNS' section detailing output structure (market cap, BTC dominance, volume for overview; price, changes, ATH for tokens). It explains the behavioral difference between calling with no arguments vs. with symbol. Lacks rate limits or data freshness details, but covers cost and return format comprehensively.

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?

Excellent structure with clear section headers (WHEN TO USE, RETURNS, COST, EXAMPLE). Front-loaded with core purpose. Every line delivers distinct value—no repetition with schema or fluff. Highly scannable and appropriately sized.

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?

For a single-parameter tool without output schema, the description is complete. The 'RETURNS' section compensates for missing output_schema by documenting return fields. Covers cost, usage context, examples, and sibling differentiation. Nothing material is missing given the tool's simplicity.

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 coverage is 100% with the 'symbol' parameter fully documented. Baseline is 3. Description adds value by providing concrete JSON 'EXAMPLE' and reinforcing the optional nature ('No arguments returns market overview; pass a symbol for detailed token data'), which aids agent invocation beyond schema specification.

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?

Description opens with specific verb 'Get' and resource 'cryptocurrency data'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tool 'veroq_crypto_chart' by stating to use that tool 'for price history' while this tool is for 'market cap overview or individual token data'. The dual-mode behavior (overview vs. token detail) is explicitly defined.

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?

Contains explicit 'WHEN TO USE' section specifying exact use cases: 'crypto market cap overview or individual token data (price, supply, ATH)'. Explicitly names alternative tool 'veroq_crypto_chart' for price history, providing clear guidance on tool selection between siblings.

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