crypto_intraday

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. 'Fetch crypto intraday' only implies a read operation without details on rate limits, authentication needs, data sources, error handling, or output format. This is inadequate for a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, leaving agents guessing about behavior.

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 extremely concise with 'Fetch crypto intraday', a single phrase that is front-loaded and wastes no words. While under-specified, it is structurally efficient, earning a high score for brevity and clarity within its limited scope.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and many sibling tools), the description is severely incomplete. It lacks purpose differentiation, usage guidelines, behavioral details, parameter explanations, and output information, making it inadequate for effective agent use.

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 0%, meaning none of the 5 parameters (symbol, market, interval, outputsize, datatype) are documented in the schema. The description adds no semantic information about these parameters (e.g., what symbols or markets are valid, interval formats, outputsize options, datatype meanings), failing to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 'Fetch crypto intraday' restates the tool name 'crypto_intraday' with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It specifies the resource (crypto intraday data) and verb (fetch) but lacks detail on what 'intraday' entails (e.g., time-series data, price metrics) or how it differs from sibling tools like 'digital_currency_daily' or 'fx_intraday', leaving purpose vague.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'digital_currency_daily', 'fx_intraday', and 'time_series_intraday', the description fails to indicate context (e.g., for cryptocurrency vs. forex, specific data types), prerequisites, or exclusions, offering no usage direction.

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