scan_top_coins

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the N+1 API call pattern and rate limit concern, which is valuable. However, it does not mention read-only nature, error handling on rate limit, or response format.

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 concise sentences: first states purpose, second adds behavioral context. No wasted words, front-loaded with action and resource.

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 simple two-parameter tool, the description covers purpose and a key behavioral note. However, it omits what the output represents (arbitrage opportunities? details?) and lacks guidance on prerequisites or error states.

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 100%, so the schema already defines both parameters clearly. The description adds context about API calls but does not clarify parameter semantics beyond schema defaults and ranges.

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 specifies the verb 'scan', the resource 'top N coins by market cap', and the outcome 'for cross-exchange arbitrage spreads above a threshold'. It clearly distinguishes from siblings 'get_coin_prices' and 'find_arbitrage' by focusing on top coins and threshold screening.

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 warns about N+1 API calls and rate limits, guiding users to be mindful when invoking. It implies that this tool is for quick screens of top coins, but does not explicitly state when to use alternatives like 'find_arbitrage' for broader searches.

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