DYOE Crypto Price ($0.01)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds important behavioral context beyond the annotations: the call costs $0.01 USDC on Base and is paid via x402. It does not discuss rate limits or latency, but for a paid read-only price tool the payment disclosure is the key extra detail.

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 short, front-loads the returned fields, and includes the essential payment detail without unnecessary prose. The phrase 'for trading agents' is mild filler, keeping it from a perfect score.

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?

With one required parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned: price, 24h change, market cap and volume. It also discloses the payment model, which an agent needs before calling. It does not describe the exact response structure, but the field list is sufficient for this simple 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the single parameter 'symbol' is already documented as a coin symbol with an example. The description restates the query format (?symbol=btc) but adds no semantic detail beyond what the schema provides. A baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific resource and verb-equivalent: it returns live crypto price, 24h change, market cap and volume for any coin. The purpose is immediately clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as dyoe_market, dyoe_token or dyoe_movers, 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 phrase 'for trading agents' hints at intended usage, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. It does not tell an agent when to choose this over dyoe_market, dyoe_token or dyoe_movers.

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