get_single_manual_crypto

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares the operation as read-only, and the description ('Get') aligns with that. The description adds the 'manually-managed' scope and the discovery workflow, but otherwise does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as error handling, response format, or potential absence of data. Given the annotation coverage, this is adequate but not enriched.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and includes a directly actionable follow-up instruction. Every word contributes value, with no unnecessary 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?

This is a simple one-parameter get operation with a readOnlyHint annotation, and the description provides the essential workflow hint (call get_all_manual_crypto first). While there is no output schema or detailed return value description, the simplicity of the tool and the offered guidance make the description adequately complete for the agent to select and invoke it 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 schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter crypto_id with a clear description ('Id of the manual crypto balance to retrieve'). The tool description essentially restates this with 'by ID,' adding no new semantic meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate for full schema coverage.

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 function: 'Get a single manually-managed crypto balance by ID.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies both the resource type ('manually-managed crypto balance') and the key distinguishing factor ('by ID'), which differentiates it from siblings like get_all_manual_crypto and get_single_synced_crypto.

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 clear usage context by instructing to 'Call get_all_manual_crypto first to discover ids,' which tells the agent the prerequisite workflow. While it does not explicitly exclude alternative tools or mention synced crypto variants, the guidance implies the correct usage scenario: retrieving a specific manual crypto entry after listing.

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