crypto_list_rating

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 verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but nothing else is disclosed—no pagination, response format, or limitations. For a simple lookup this is minimal, but it does not go beyond the inferred read 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, six-word sentence—front-loaded with the core verb and resource. It contains zero filler words or redundant information. Perfect conciseness for a simple operation.

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 parameterless lookup tool, this description conveys the essential purpose: retrieving unique rating values for crypto. It is sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool returns, though it doesn't specify output formatting or edge cases. Given the tool's simplicity, this is reasonably 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 coverage is 100% (vacuously true). With no parameters to describe, the baseline score of 4 applies; there is nothing for the description to add.

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 states a clear action ('Get') and a specific resource ('unique rating values for crypto'). It distinguishes from other crypto list tools (category, type) by focusing on ratings, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar tools like forex_list_rating. It is specific enough to convey the tool's function.

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 doesn't mention conditions, prerequisites, or why one might choose this over forex_list_rating or other list tools. Usage context is entirely implied.

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