get_crypto_price

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it fetches live data, supports a wide range of coins, and uses CoinGecko as the source. However, it does not mention rate limits, error handling, or authentication needs, leaving gaps in operational context for a tool that likely queries an external API.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently lists the returned metrics and supported coins in a single, dense sentence. Every element (e.g., data points, coin examples, source) serves to clarify usage without redundancy, making it highly 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers what the tool does and the data returned, but lacks details on output format, error cases, or performance constraints, which are important for an API-based tool without structured output documentation.

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 documents both parameters (coin_id and currency) thoroughly. The description adds marginal value by reinforcing the CoinGecko ID usage and listing example coins, but does not provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema specifies, aligning with the baseline for high coverage.

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 specific action ('Get live crypto price') and resources ('Bitcoin, Ethereum, TAO (Bittensor) and 10,000+ coins'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_bittensor_stats (specific to Bittensor) or get_stock_quote (stocks). It explicitly lists the data returned (price, 24h/7d change, market cap, volume, ATH), making the purpose highly specific and differentiated.

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 by specifying the data source ('via CoinGecko ID') and supported coins, which helps guide usage. However, it does not explicitly state when to use alternatives like get_multiple_crypto_prices (for multiple coins) or get_top_movers (for trending data), so it lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to siblings.

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