getCryptoLoanCommonLoanableData

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds useful behavioral facts beyond them: no authentication required, public endpoint, 1000-request rate limit, flexible hourly rates, and fixed terms from 7D to 180D. It does not contradict the annotations, which is a strong positive signal.

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 front-loaded with a one-sentence purpose, followed by compact 'Features' and 'Use Cases' bullet groups. It is appropriately sized for a public API endpoint with no title, though there is minor overlap between the Features and Use Cases sections.

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 read-only query tool with no required parameters and no output schema, the description supplies enough context to call it: no auth, parameters, rate limit, and the kind of data returned (availability, rates, min/max limits). It omits response structure and exact currency/VIP string formats, but these are minor gaps for this endpoint.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the parameter-documentation burden and mostly succeeds: it links `currency` to querying a specific currency or all currencies, and `vipLevel` to filtering rates and limits. It does not provide exact value formats or examples, but the semantic mapping is far above what the bare schema provides.

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 verb and resource: 'Query information about currencies available for borrowing in the crypto loan system.' It is clear that this is a read-only lookup for loanable currencies, rates, and limits, and the 'Common' name plus 'supports both flexible and fixed-term' helps separate it from fixed/flexible inventory siblings, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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 'Use Cases' section gives explicit contexts for using the tool, such as checking currency availability, viewing VIP-level rates, and getting min/max borrow amounts. It does not mention when not to use it or call out alternatives like getCryptoLoanFlexibleAvailableInventory or getCryptoLoanFixedAvailableInventory, so it stops 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.