get_crypto_markets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the $0.002 per request cost, which is useful, and 'Get' implies a read-only operation. However, it doesn't disclose rate limits, pagination behavior, or any side effects. The cost detail raises awareness but overall transparency is only average.

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 extremely concise, consisting of a purpose sentence and a cost note. It is front-loaded with the key information and contains zero redundancy. Every word earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 tool has 5 optional parameters and no output schema, so the description should partially cover behavior and return values. It hints at 'detailed market data' but is vague about what that includes. Given the schema documents parameters well, the main gap is lack of specifics about the response content and pagination/order behavior. This makes it adequate but not 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. It mentions 'market cap' which aligns with the 'order' parameter, but provides no additional detail about how parameters interact (e.g., category filtering). Thus, it does not improve on the schema.

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 tool returns top cryptocurrencies by market cap with detailed market data. It is specific about the resource and scope, but it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like search_crypto or get_trending_crypto. The 'by market cap' detail provides some differentiation, but naming alternatives would make it a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many crypto-related siblings. No mention of alternatives, exclusions, or typical use cases. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer suitability. This is a clear gap given the large set of sibling tools.

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