get_all_crypto

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating the tool is safe and read-only. The description adds value by disclosing that it returns both synced and manually managed crypto assets, providing context beyond the annotation. It does not contradict 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?

The description consists of two short sentences, both front-loaded with key information. Every word serves a purpose, and there is no extraneous content. Excellent conciseness.

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 that there is no output schema, the description only mentions that it returns 'both synced and manually managed crypto assets' but lacks detail on the return structure (e.g., fields, pagination). For a simple read-only tool, this is adequate but could be more explicit about the response format.

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 tool has zero parameters, so schema description coverage is 100% (trivially). Baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics, but that is acceptable since there are none to describe.

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 all cryptocurrency holdings') and the source ('v1 crypto endpoint'). It also specifies the scope ('both synced and manually managed'), distinguishing it from any sibling tool. No sibling tool performs the same function, so the purpose is 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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, since no direct alternative exists (only update_manual_crypto for updates), the context is implied. Still, it lacks explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' instructions.

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