get_single_synced_crypto

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read. The description adds that the tool returns 'all its nested balances,' which informs the agent of the scope of the response. However, it doesn't describe error behavior or response format. Since annotations cover the safety profile, this is sufficient.

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 12-word sentence, front-loaded with the verb, and contains no filler. It is appropriately concise.

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 simple get-by-ID tool with one parameter and readOnlyHint annotation, the description covers the core purpose and hints at return contents ('nested balances'). It doesn't specify return structure or error cases, but given the low complexity, it's fairly complete.

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 describes crypto_id at 100% coverage ('Id of the synced crypto account to retrieve'). The description merely says 'by ID' without adding any new information about the parameter, so it doesn't elevate beyond the schema baseline.

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 the specific verb 'Get,' identifies the resource as 'a single synced crypto account' and clarifies scope with 'all its nested balances by ID.' This distinguishes it from siblings like get_all_synced_crypto (plural) and get_single_manual_crypto (manual vs synced).

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 by stating 'by ID' and 'single synced crypto account,' indicating it's for retrieving one specific synced crypto account. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as using get_all_synced_crypto for listing or get_synced_crypto_balance for just balances.

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