crypto_tickers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says 'List' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that it is non-mutating, nor does it disclose any edge cases (e.g., whether the list includes delisted tokens, what happens with no results, or any rate limits). The description is minimal and offers no behavioral nuance.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It contains no fluff and is appropriately sized for a simple tool. However, it could incorporate usage guidance without becoming bloated, so it earns a high but not perfect score.

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 tool with many sibling variants (e.g., etf_tickers, stocks_tickers, futures_tickers) and no output schema, the description is too thin to guide selection. It does not clarify what 'tickers' returns, how it differs from gainers/losers/price tools, or whether it supports various crypto asset types. An agent would need to inspect the schema and infer from the name, which is insufficient.

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 already describes the single optional parameter 'type' with an example ('spot'). The description merely repeats 'optionally filtered by type' without adding any new meaning, such as valid values, default behavior, or interaction with the filter. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3, and no additional insight is provided.

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 specific verb ('List') and resource ('cryptocurrency tickers') and mentions the optional filter. It is clear about the basic action, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like crypto_prices, crypto_quote, or even etf_tickers and stocks_tickers. An agent would not know what makes this tool distinct (e.g., that it returns only ticker symbols vs. price data).

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 'use crypto_gainers for performance lists' or 'use crypto_quote for detailed quotes.' With many sibling tools, the absence of usage context leaves the agent to infer based on names alone.

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