get_crypto_latest_bar

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the required loc parameter constraint ('always set loc to "us"'), which is useful behavioral context beyond the schema. However, it doesn't describe rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or the structure of the returned bar data (though output schema exists). The description adds some value but leaves gaps in behavioral disclosure.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place: the first states the core functionality, the second provides critical usage guidance. No wasted words, front-loaded with the main purpose, and structured for immediate comprehension.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 required parameters), 100% schema coverage, and existence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the core purpose and critical parameter constraint. The output schema will handle return values, so the description doesn't need to explain those. Minor gaps remain in behavioral context like rate limits or error handling.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description adds marginal value by emphasizing the loc parameter requirement ('always set loc to "us"'), but this doesn't significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema's enum and description. No additional parameter semantics are provided, so baseline 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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('latest minute bar for one or more crypto symbols'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_crypto_bars (historical bars) or get_crypto_latest_quote/trade (different data types). It precisely defines what data is retrieved and for which asset class.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool by specifying it returns 'latest minute bar' data, implying real-time or recent market data needs. It distinguishes from historical bar tools but doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The loc parameter requirement is stated, but no broader context about sibling selection is given.

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