kr-crypto-intelligence

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool returns symbols from specific exchanges (Upbit, Bithumb, and common ones), which adds useful context beyond a basic 'get' operation. However, it lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or response format, leaving behavioral gaps for a tool with no annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by usage guidance. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 has 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists, the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does and when to use it, though it could benefit from more behavioral details (e.g., response structure or limitations) to fully compensate for the lack of annotations.

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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add parameter semantics, but this is acceptable given the lack of parameters, warranting a baseline score above 3 for simplicity.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('all available trading symbols on Korean exchanges'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it returns symbols from Upbit, Bithumb, and common ones. This helps the agent understand it's for listing symbols, not fetching prices or other data like sibling tools do.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('to check which symbols you can query before calling other tools'), providing clear guidance on its role as a prerequisite for other tools. It implies an alternative is not using it before querying symbols, which is helpful for the agent.

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