crypto_get_last_trade

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 only restates the tool's function without mentioning return format, error conditions, authentication needs, or whether it's a read-only operation beyond the implied 'get'.

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, well-structured sentence that is directly front-loaded. No unnecessary words or filler, making it highly concise.

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?

The tool lacks an output schema and annotations, so the description should explain what the last trade data includes (e.g., price, size, timestamp). It doesn't. Given the simplicity, it's minimally viable but not fully complete for an agent to set expectations.

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?

The schema has no descriptions for from_symbol or to_symbol, and the description only adds the vague notion of a 'crypto pair'. It doesn't explicitly clarify that from_symbol is the base currency and to_symbol is the quote currency, nor does it provide format or example values.

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 'Get the last trade for a crypto pair' is specific and clear, with a verb ('get'), resource ('last trade'), and scope ('crypto pair'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like crypto_get_trades or crypto_get_historic_trades by explicitly noting 'last trade'.

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 alternatives. There are no use-case examples or exclusions, such as when to prefer crypto_get_trades for historical trades or crypto_get_snapshot for more comprehensive data.

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