get_crypto_latest_bar

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: the loc parameter must always be 'us', and the tool only returns the latest minute bar. However, it does not address potential edge cases (e.g., what happens if another loc is passed) or mention the read-only nature explicitly, though 'Returns' implies it. The description is adequate but sparse.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. The first sentence states what the tool does, and the second gives a critical usage instruction. Every word contributes meaning; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 tool with a rich output schema and fully described parameters, the description is mostly complete. It covers the essential purpose and the mandatory loc value. It could be improved by noting that this is for real-time latest data only and that historical data requires get_crypto_bars, but the absence is minor given the simplicity and schema support.

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 input schema already describes both parameters with 100% coverage, so a baseline of 3 applies. The description adds extra meaning for the loc parameter by specifying that it must always be set to 'us', which is not evident from the schema alone (since the enum lists multiple options). This guidance is valuable and raises the score.

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 a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('latest minute bar for one or more crypto symbols'), which distinguishes it from related tools like get_crypto_bars (which likely returns historical bars) and other latest-data tools (trade/quote). It is unambiguous and leaves no doubt about 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 a useful parameter instruction ('always set loc to "us"'), which is a form of usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_crypto_bars or when a different loc value would be appropriate. The condition is implied by the word 'latest' but not stated.

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