kr-crypto-intelligence

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses what data is returned (prices, volume, change rate) and the exchange options, but doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or whether this is a real-time or delayed feed. Some behavioral context is provided but not comprehensive.

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?

Perfectly structured with a clear purpose statement followed by a concise Args section. Every sentence earns its place - the first establishes scope and return values, the second explains parameters with examples. Zero wasted words.

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 an output schema (which handles return values), 2 parameters with good description coverage, and moderate complexity, the description is mostly complete. It could benefit from mentioning any limitations or edge cases, but covers the essential purpose and parameters well.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters thoroughly. It defines 'symbol' with concrete examples (BTC, ETH, XRP, SOL, DOGE) and 'exchange' with valid values ('upbit', 'bithumb', 'all'), adding crucial meaning beyond the bare 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 clearly states the specific action ('Get cryptocurrency prices'), resources ('from Korean exchanges'), and scope ('KRW-denominated prices, 24h volume, and change rate'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_fx_rate or get_kimchi_premium by focusing on direct price data rather than derived metrics.

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 implies usage when Korean exchange prices are needed, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_market_read or get_available_symbols. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is provided.

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