get_crypto_categories

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the cost per request ($0.001) which is valuable, but it does not mention read-only nature, response format, pagination, or any potential side effects. Since this is a simple list operation, the missing details are not critical, but the description only partially discloses behavior.

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 the verb and resource first, followed by the purpose and cost. Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy or filler. It is an example of efficient, well-structured tool documentation.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it lists, why to use it, and the cost. It could be considered complete, but it leaves out details about the return format (e.g., whether it returns a JSON array of IDs with names) and any rate limits. Still, given the low complexity, it is nearly 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is empty and schema coverage is 100% by default. The description doesn't need to explain parameters but does clarify that the output is category IDs, which is useful. Given the baseline for 0 params is 4, this 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 clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'CoinGecko category IDs', which precisely identifies the tool's function. It also provides context ('for sector discovery and downstream market filters') and distinguishes it from sibling crypto tools by focusing on categories rather than prices, markets, or history.

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 phrase 'for sector discovery and downstream market filters' conveys when to use this tool, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria. The context is clear enough to infer usage, but it lacks a direct comparison to sibling tools like get_crypto_markets or search_crypto.

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