get_crypto_rates

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It only mentions the Pro plan requirement, which is a significant access constraint, but it omits other important details: no mention of read-only nature, rate limits, response format, error behavior, or what 'top coins' implies for omitted symbols. The description is thin on behavior beyond the plan gate.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It states the core action, the unit (USD), and the plan requirement compactly. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool with one optional parameter.

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 tool's simplicity and full schema coverage, the description is mostly adequate, but it lacks usage guidance and broader behavioral disclosure (e.g., return format, read-only nature). With many siblings, it should at least hint at when to use it. The plan requirement is a plus, but the overall context is incomplete for an agent deciding between similar rate tools.

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%, so the parameter is already well-documented in the schema. The description adds the 'top coins' qualifier, but doesn't explain how symbols interact with that limitation or what happens when symbols are omitted (beyond 'all tracked coins' in schema). It doesn't add meaningful semantic detail beyond the schema, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('cryptocurrency prices in USD'), with the qualifier 'top coins' clarifying scope. It clearly distinguishes from stock and metal price tools, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from get_latest_rates, which might also cover crypto. Purpose is clear and specific.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many siblings (e.g., get_latest_rates, get_historical_rates). It only mentions the Pro plan requirement, which is a constraint, not usage context. There is no mention of alternatives or exclusions, so an agent must infer when to choose this over other rate tools.

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