getCoinById

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses that the tool is read-only and requires no API key. These are key behavioral traits. However, it does not cover potential error behaviors (e.g., invalid coinId) or rate limits, which would be beneficial for agent decision-making. The disclosure is adequate but not exhaustive.

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, with no redundant information. Every sentence serves a purpose: stating what the tool does, providing usage examples, clarifying what it does not do, and giving parameter resolution guidance. It is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 lists the returned info types (description, links, team, tags), which is helpful given no output schema. However, it does not specify whether additional fields exist or the exact structure. For a simple lookup tool with one parameter and many siblings, the description provides good context but could be slightly more detailed on the return format.

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 covers the single parameter coinId with 100% coverage, but the description adds significant value: it clarifies that coinId is a canonical slug in 'symbol-name' format, warns against using ticker symbols, explains that slugs are not derivable from symbols, and directs the agent to use search or resolveId first. This greatly enhances semantic understanding.

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 returns 'descriptive project information about a coin: description, links, team and tags.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('descriptive project information'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling getTickersById by noting what it does not include (price).

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 provides explicit use cases ('tell me about Uniswap', 'what is this project') and direct guidance on when to avoid this tool ('Does NOT include price; for price and market cap use getTickersById'). It also explains that coinId must be canonical and how to resolve it, giving clear prerequisites.

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