crypto_list_category

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states that it retrieves unique category values; it does not indicate whether this is a read-only operation (though implied), what the output format is (list of strings?), or any potential limits or edge cases. Without annotations, this is insufficient for transparent behavior.

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, compact sentence with no filler. It states the action and the target resource efficiently. Given the tool's simplicity, this is appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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 no-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is adequate: it tells the agent what the tool returns. However, it does not provide any broader context about how the returned categories relate to other crypto tools or what an agent might do with this information. While not strictly necessary for a simple lookup, a touch more context (e.g., typical use cases) would elevate completeness. Still, given the low complexity, this is largely complete.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty (100% coverage by trivial default). The description adds no parameter details because there are none to add. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not introduce any contradiction or omission.

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 a specific verb (Get) and resource (unique category values for crypto), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate from similar siblings like crypto_list_type or crypto_list_rating, but the phrase 'unique category values' is distinct enough to suggest a different enumeration. For a zero-parameter tool, this is clear and functional.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It neither states conditions for selection nor mentions exclusions. In a context with many sibling list tools (e.g., crypto_list_type, crypto_list_rating), an agent would have no basis to decide between them. This is a significant gap for a domain with numerous similarly named functions.

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