get_multiple_crypto_prices

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'live prices' and 'at once', hinting at real-time data and batch processing, but lacks critical details like rate limits, data freshness, error handling, or response format. For a tool fetching financial data, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 highly concise with two sentences that directly convey the core functionality and a key use case. Every word earns its place, and it's front-loaded with the primary purpose. No wasted verbiage or redundancy.

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 (batch price fetching), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the 'what' but misses behavioral details (e.g., rate limits, data sources) and output expectations. With 100% schema coverage, it meets a basic threshold but doesn't fully compensate for the missing structured data.

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 (coin_ids and currency). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as examples of valid coin IDs beyond the schema's 'bitcoin,ethereum,bittensor' or clarification on currency support. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.

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 ('Get') and resource ('live prices for multiple cryptocurrencies'), distinguishing it from single-crypto tools like 'get_crypto_price'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from portfolio-related siblings like 'get_portfolio_summary' beyond the 'portfolio snapshot' hint.

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 implies usage context with 'Perfect for a portfolio snapshot', suggesting when this tool might be preferred. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'get_crypto_price' (single coin) or 'get_portfolio_summary' (broader portfolio data), nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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