finnhub_crypto_data

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only lists operations with minimal descriptions (e.g., 'List crypto exchanges'), omitting details on rate limits, data coverage, authentication, or return format. The read-only nature is only inferred from the operation names, not explicitly stated.

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 concise, well-organized, and front-loaded with the resource categories. The bullet list of operations is scannable and contains no filler words, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 multi-operation tool with 7 parameters and no enum for the required operation, the description is insufficient. It does not specify the exact operation string values, which parameters are required for each operation, or details like timestamp units. The output schema exists but does not resolve invocation ambiguity.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain any parameter meanings or valid values. It lists operation names that imply certain parameters (e.g., get_crypto_candles likely needs symbol, resolution, timestamps), but does not map parameters to operations or provide formats or constraints.

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 identifies the tool's domain (cryptocurrency) and lists four specific operations with their resources: exchanges, symbols, profiles, and candles. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like forex or stock data. However, the opening phrase is a noun phrase rather than a verb-led statement, and it does not explicitly state the overall purpose beyond listing these operations.

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 sibling tools (e.g., finnhub_forex_data) or when to choose one operation over another. The operation list implies some usage context, but there are no explicit criteria, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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