market_overview

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one genuine behavioral trait — no auth/signup needed — but says nothing about rate limits, data freshness/caching, or whether the two views return different shapes.

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?

Front-loads the API tag and the free/no-signup claim, which is good, but 'Free, no signup required' is literally duplicated, and the bare example path adds little for an agent that already knows the tool name. Padding costs it a point.

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 2-parameter, read-only, zero-required-arg tool with a fully documented schema, the description covers purpose and auth adequately. With no output schema and no annotations, however, it should say something about the shape of the returned data or refresh cadence and does not.

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 both parameters (view, limit) are already documented with defaults and maxima in the schema. The description's mention of 'global stats or top coins' loosely maps to the view parameter but adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific resource and content: CoinGecko global crypto stats (market cap, 24h volume, BTC/ETH dominance) or top coins by market cap. An agent can distinguish this aggregate-market tool from siblings like price, ohlcv, or sentiment, though it never names a sibling 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?

No when-to-use guidance, no conditions for picking this over price/ohlcv/sentiment, and no prerequisites beyond 'no signup required'. The agent must infer usage entirely from the purpose sentence.

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