Get Crypto Quotes

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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint=true, the description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: it explains the automatic lookback computation when start is omitted and the 'limit' parameter's cross-symbol semantics. It does not contradict the read-only annotation, and there are no destructive concerns.

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 efficiently structured: a one-sentence purpose, a note about the start-omitted behavior, then a clear Arg list. Every line is informative, and the length is appropriate for a tool with 8 parameters.

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?

The description covers the tool's behavior comprehensively: parameter formats, defaults, time-zone semantics, and cross-symbol limits. Since an output schema exists, the lack of explicit return-value documentation is not a gap. It is complete for a historical-quotes tool.

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?

Given the schema has 0% per-parameter description coverage, the description fully compensates by documenting every parameter: symbols format with examples, start/end RFC 3339 and omission behavior, units for days/hours/minutes, limit range (1-10000), and sort values. This far exceeds 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve historical bid/ask quotes for one or more cryptocurrencies.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_crypto_latest_quote (latest rather than historical) and get_crypto_bars (bars, not bid/ask quotes).

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 establishes clear context by specifying 'historical' quotes, implying it is for past data rather than current/latest quotes. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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