create_manual_crypto

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

Annotations only include idempotentHint: false, which covers non-idempotency. The description contributes a behavioral constraint (symbol must match supported currencies) but does not disclose other side effects, permissions, or return behavior. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 short sentences, each earning its place: the first states the action and resource, the second adds an indispensable prerequisite. No fluff.

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 create tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description provides the core purpose and a key prerequisite, but it omits information about return values, duplicate behavior, or what 'manually-managed' implies relative to synced assets. The schema covers parameters, but high-level behavioral completeness is only 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 each parameter already has a detailed description. The tool description adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond repeating the symbol constraint already present in the schema. 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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('a manually-managed crypto asset'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_manual_account or synced crypto tools. The added constraint about symbol matching supported cryptocurrencies further clarifies its scope.

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?

It clearly indicates the action (creating a manual crypto asset) and provides a key prerequisite (symbol must come from get_supported_cryptocurrencies). However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this over alternatives like synced crypto creation, nor does it specify any exclusions.

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