refresh_synced_crypto

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

The annotation openWorldHint already signals external side effects, and the description explicitly mentions reaching out to the external crypto provider, which adds behavioral context. It does not contradict the annotation. It lacks details on potential failure or latency, but given the tool's simplicity, the disclosure 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 concise, with two clear sentences that front-load the primary action and immediately state the return value. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 one-parameter tool without an output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what it does, what it returns, and that it makes an external call. It lacks any note on error conditions or timing, but these are not critical for the tool's basic usage.

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 single parameter crypto_id is fully described in the schema ('Id of the synced crypto account to refresh'), and the description adds no further semantic meaning. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 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 clearly states the action ('Trigger a balance refresh') and the resource ('a synced crypto account'), with the specific outcome of returning the refreshed account. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_synced_crypto_balance or get_single_synced_crypto, which do not perform a refresh.

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 context: it is used to refresh a synced crypto account via an external provider call. It implies when to use it (to get up-to-date balance) but does not explicitly exclude alternatives like reading a cached balance. However, the sibling name get_synced_crypto_balance suggests the alternative, so the guidance is adequate.

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