d3p_btc-price

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 data source (CoinGecko), cost (5 sats), and endpoint, but does not mention rate limits, authentication, error behavior, or caching. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to detail return values, but more context on reliability and limitations would improve 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 concise (three lines) and front-loads the core functionality. It includes metadata (category, cost, endpoint) that adds value without being verbose. Every sentence serves a purpose, but the meta-data could be integrated more naturally.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, known API) and existence of output schema, the description covers the basics: source, return type (price+change), and supported currencies. However, it omits details on update frequency, caching behavior, and error cases, which would be useful for an agent making informed decisions.

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 input schema has 0% coverage (only a generic 'params' string), so the description compensates by specifying the actual parameter 'currency' with examples (usd, eur, gbp, etc.). It also states to 'pass as JSON string,' which clarifies usage. However, it doesn't specify if currency is required or its default value, leaving some ambiguity.

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 provides 'real-time Bitcoin price from CoinGecko with 24h change' and 'supports multiple fiat currencies,' making the verb (get) and resource (Bitcoin price) specific. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'd3p_bitcoin-price-in-gold-ounces' by focusing on fiat currencies.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. The 'category: oracle' hint and mention of fiat currencies implicitly differentiate it from the gold-price sibling, but there is no explicit guidance on when-not-to-use or prerequisites.

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