crypto_losers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get top crypto losers' and gives no information about sorting order, time horizon, result formatting, pagination, or any other observable behavior. An agent has no indication of what a 'call' returns or any constraints, which is insufficient even for a read-only getter.

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, direct sentence with no fluff. It is appropriately short and front-loaded, conveying the core purpose immediately. There is no wasted wording, so it earns a top score for conciseness.

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 simple zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential gist but lacks operational detail. An agent knows it returns 'top crypto losers' but not what fields are in the response, how many results, or what defines 'top' (e.g., 24h change, 7d change). Given the absence of an output schema, this is a moderate gap that could cause assumptions or misparsing.

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 schema coverage is at 100% (vacuous). The description doesn't add any parameter-related meaning, but none is required since there are no parameters. Per the baseline for zero parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate; the description could note that no arguments are needed, but that's implied by the schema.

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 top crypto losers' clearly states a specific verb ('get') and a resource ('top crypto losers'), distinguishing it from the many sibling 'losers' tools by the 'crypto' prefix. It is not a tautology and immediately conveys the tool's function, though it doesn't specify the metric (e.g., price change over a period) or the number of items returned.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that this complements crypto_gainers, nor does it clarify how it differs from other 'losers' tools like stocks_losers or etf_losers. The sibling list is large but the description provides no routing or exclusion context.

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