get_crypto_latest_trade

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the disclosure burden. It does indicate a read-only operation ('returns') and communicates the required loc constraint, but it omits details such as response structure for multiple symbols, error behavior, or rate limits. The output schema covers return format, mitigating some risk.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core function. No unnecessary 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?

For a simple latest-trade tool with an output schema and full parameter descriptions, the description covers the essential operation and the critical loc value. It lacks explicit sibling differentiation, but output schema reduces the need to describe the return format. Overall sufficient for invocation.

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%, providing baseline 3. The description adds value by instructing the agent to always set loc to 'us', which disambiguates the enum and prevents incorrect selections. It also confirms the required nature of loc beyond the schema's required array.

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 uses a specific verb ('returns'), identifies the resource ('latest trade'), and scopes it to 'one or more crypto symbols', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_crypto_trades (historical trades) or get_stock_latest_trade.

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?

It provides a clear parameter-level directive ('always set loc to "us"') but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over sibling tools like get_crypto_trades or get_crypto_latest_quote. The tool name implies the use case, so usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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