get_crypto_latest_quote

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that loc is required and should be 'us' and that multiple symbols are supported, but it does not explicitly indicate that the operation is read-only, nor does it cover error conditions, rate limits, or any side effects. This is minimal disclosure for a tool that could be used without additional safety context.

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 only two sentences, both front-loaded with essential information. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second gives a critical parameter instruction. Every word earns its place, with 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 only two parameters and an output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It conveys the core functionality and the key loc constraint. The only notable gap is the lack of guidance on when to prefer this over sibling tools, but that belongs to the usage dimension. Given the low complexity, the description covers what an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both loc and symbols. The description adds the directive to always set loc to 'us', which is a meaningful recommendation beyond the schema's enum listing. It also clarifies that symbols can be one or more, reinforcing the comma-separated format. This additional value justifies a score above the baseline of 3.

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 function: 'Returns the latest quote for one or more crypto symbols.' It identifies the resource (crypto quotes) and action (retrieve latest). It distinguishes from trade or bars tools by resource type, but does not explicitly compare with sibling quote tools like get_crypto_quotes, so it falls short of a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_crypto_latest_trade or get_crypto_quotes. The only usage instruction, 'always set loc to "us"', is parameter-level advice, not tool-selection guidance. Thus, it does not help an agent decide between this and other quote-related tools.

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