get_crypto_price

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It adds the cost per request ($0.001), which is a useful operational detail not present elsewhere. However, it does not mention rate limits, response format, or explicitly confirm the read-only nature, though the verb 'get' implies it. The cost disclosure earns a mid-range score.

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 at two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and then adds the cost detail. However, it is slightly under-specified for a tool with four parameters, so it doesn't earn a perfect 5.

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 four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description is minimal. It does not describe the return value, usage context, or how it differs from similar crypto tools. Given the abundance of sibling tools, this lack of contextual information makes it incomplete.

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 input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, clearly specifying ids, currencies, include_24h, and include_mcap. The description itself adds no parameter-specific semantics, so the baseline score of 3 applies. The cost note is unrelated to parameter meanings.

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 action ('Get current prices for cryptocurrencies') with a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_crypto_markets or get_token_prices, but the resource is unambiguous. The cost note adds a minor extra context.

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 alternatives such as get_crypto_markets or get_token_prices. No exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual triggers are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name.

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