crypto_get_daily_open_close

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It only states what the tool does without disclosing behavior like whether adjustments are applied, what the response contains beyond open/close, or any potential errors. The description provides no additional context beyond the function's core purpose.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the action and key context without any fluff. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 relatively straightforward tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not mention the 'adjusted' parameter or what the return structure looks like, though 'get open/close' strongly implies the response contains open and close prices. Given the low complexity, a score of 3 (minimum viable) is appropriate.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides the date format (YYYY-MM-DD) and implies that from_symbol and to_symbol represent the crypto pair. However, it fails to explain the 'adjusted' parameter, which remains ambiguous despite being a boolean with a default.

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?

Description clearly states it gets open/close for a crypto pair on a specific date, with the date format specified. It differentiates itself from similar stock/options/forex tools by mentioning 'crypto pair', though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools for stocks, options, or forex. The only implicit signal is the word 'crypto' in the name and description, but no explicit alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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