get_supported_cryptocurrencies

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

With annotations providing readOnlyHint, the description adds value by specifying that the list is for manual tracking and that the symbols are prerequisites for create_manual_crypto. This clarifies the relationship to other tools and the nature of the data, going beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

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 primary action, and the second sentence provides essential cross-tool context. No words are wasted, making it 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?

For a simple zero-parameter tool with a readOnlyHint and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what the tool returns (supported cryptocurrencies) and how the output should be used. No critical information is missing for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information because none is needed; the empty schema fully covers the parameters, and the description's focus on the output symbol is more relevant.

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 'Get the list of cryptocurrencies supported for manual tracking,' which specifies the verb (get), the resource (cryptocurrencies), and the scope (supported for manual tracking). It distinguishes from siblings like get_all_manual_crypto and add_supported_cryptocurrency by clarifying its role as the supported list, not the user's tracked list or the add operation.

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 clear guidance on when to use this tool: before calling create_manual_crypto, since the symbol must come from this list. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the connection to create_manual_crypto provides strong contextual usage direction, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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