get_crypto_markets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get' and 'filter by symbol', leaving the agent to infer read-only behavior, pagination, ordering, authentication requirements, and result shape. For a tool with zero annotation safety signals, this is a significant gap.

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 short sentences with the primary action first and the optional behavior second. No filler, no redundancy, and each sentence earns its place.

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 list endpoint with only two optional parameters, the description covers the core retrieval and filtering behavior. However, without annotations or an output schema, it does not disclose what fields each market result contains, whether pagination exists, or any ordering constraints. This leaves some uncertainty for an agent that needs to consume the response correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only that the symbol parameter is an optional filter, which the schema already documents ('Specific crypto symbol... or None for all'). It adds no new meaning about the limit parameter or the interaction between limit and symbol.

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 states a clear verb ('Get') and a distinct resource ('cryptocurrency-related markets'), which separates it from siblings like sports or event markets. It also mentions the optional symbol filter, adding specificity. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from other 'get_*_markets' tools by naming alternatives or stating it returns all crypto markets, so it stops 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 description conveys when to use the tool ('get crypto markets, optionally filtered by symbol') but provides no guidance about when not to use it or which siblings to prefer (e.g., trending, featured, closing soon). There are no explicit alternatives or exclusions, so usage context is implied rather than strategically directed.

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