Get coin details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by detailing what data the 'full profile' includes (e.g., supply figures, all-time high, 24h/7d/30d price changes), which goes beyond the structured annotations. It does not contradict annotations and enriches the agent's understanding of the tool's 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, tightly-packed sentence that front-loads the main purpose ('full profile for one coin') and immediately lists the included data. Every element contributes directly to understanding the tool's output. There is no redundancy or filler, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 (2 parameters, both documented), the presence of an output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description provides sufficient context. It clearly sets expectations for the breadth of data returned without needing to explain return formats (handled by output schema). The description is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters (coin_id and vs_currency). The description does not add significant new parameter semantics; it mentions market data and price changes, which aligns with vs_currency but is already implied by the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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's purpose: 'Get a full profile for one coin' and enumerates specific data categories (description, homepage, categories, supply figures, all-time high, and price changes). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_coin_price (which only returns price) and get_market_chart (which returns chart data). The verb 'get' plus the resource 'coin' and the detailed scope make the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage when a comprehensive profile is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance or references to siblings such as get_coin_price for simple price queries. The context is clear but implied rather than directly stated.

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