queryCoinList

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description only needs to add behavioral context beyond those. It does add return categories like status and precision, but it does not clarify behavior around the optional 'side' parameter or the open-world nature of results. No contradiction with annotations.

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 well-structured: a one-line summary, a bulleted list of returns, and a bulleted list of use cases. It is front-loaded and reasonably concise, though the use-case section is somewhat redundant with the return list.

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 gives enough information for a no-parameter call and explains the general output categories, which is helpful given there is no output schema. However, the sole parameter is entirely undocumented, and the mention of 'transaction limits for each currency pair' is slightly inconsistent with the stated return of individual currencies with limits.

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?

The input schema has one optional parameter, 'side', with enum values '0' and '1', but no schema description and no explanation in the tool description. The description never mentions 'side', so an agent cannot determine what the values mean or when to pass them. With 0% schema coverage, the description needed to compensate and did not.

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 queries supported fiat currencies and cryptocurrencies and enumerates what is returned: limits, statuses, and precision. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as CoinListQuery or getAssetList, so it misses the top score.

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 provides clear context: displaying currencies before trading, validating currency codes before quotes, and showing transaction limits. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or point to any alternative sibling tool.

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