get_crypto_latest_bar

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It clearly states the read operation and adds a critical non-obvious constraint: 'always set loc to us,' despite the enum listing other locations. It does not mention auth or rate limits, but 'Returns' implies a safe read, and the output schema covers return structure.

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?

Two sentences with no fluff: the core action is front-loaded, followed by the critical loc constraint. Every word contributes to correct invocation.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers the data returned, the required location, and symbol list shape. It omits possible limits on symbol count or multi-symbol return format, but those are likely handled by the output schema. The low complexity makes this sufficient.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, setting a baseline of 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by specifying that symbols must be 'one or more' and by mandating loc='us' even though the schema permits other enum values. This is meaningful guidance an agent cannot infer from the schema alone.

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 opens with 'Returns the latest minute bar for one or more crypto symbols,' clearly stating the verb, resource, and scope. It differentiates well from siblings like get_crypto_latest_quote (quote vs. bar) and get_crypto_bars (historical vs. latest).

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 a precise invocation instruction ('always set loc to us') but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when to use this tool over siblings. Tool-selection guidance is only implied by the phrase 'latest minute bar' versus sibling names. This is adequate but not explicit.

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