List top coins by market cap

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that each coin includes price and 24-hour change, which is a mild behavioral detail, but it doesn't disclose potential caveats like rate limits or pagination behavior. Since annotations carry the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and purpose, no fluff. Every sentence contributes meaning, 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 moderate complexity (4 optional params), rich annotations, and an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It conveys the core function and use case without needing to repeat return details that the output schema already covers. The only minor gap is not explicitly distinguishing from similar list tools, but the context is adequate.

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 coverage is 100%, so the parameters are fully described in the schema. The description reinforces that ranking can be by market cap, volume, or id, which aligns with the order parameter but doesn't add new meaning beyond the schema's own description. Baseline 3 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 tool lists coins ranked by market cap, volume, or id, with price and 24-hour change. It differentiates from siblings by framing it for market overviews and 'top N' questions, which is distinct from get_trending_coins or get_global_market_overview.

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 gives explicit usage context: 'Use this for market overviews and top N questions.' It doesn't name alternatives or state when not to use it, but this clear context implies appropriate scenarios without needing exclusions.

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