getCoinOHLCVLatest

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden and does well: it declares read-only behavior, states no API key is required, and confirms the default quote currency. It doesn't discuss rate limits or error behavior for an invalid slug, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

Four short sentences: what it returns, when to use, when to use a different tool, and call prerequisites. Front-loaded and zero filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description still enumerates the returned fields (OHLC plus volume), covers both parameters' constraints, and states auth expectations. An agent has everything needed to call it 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 coverage is already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real value by warning that ticker symbols and guessed slugs fail and pointing at resolveId first. It also confirms the quote default, reinforcing rather than merely repeating the schema.

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?

Specific verb and resource ('get the latest full-day OHLC candle') with explicit scope (full-day, not live tick) and the exact fields returned. It distinguishes itself from getCoinOHLCVToday/getCoinOHLCVHistorical and names getTickersById as the live-price alternative.

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?

Gives a concrete use case ('yesterday's candle for BTC'), an explicit exclusion with the sibling to use instead for live spot price, and a prerequisite (resolve a bare symbol with resolveId first). Nothing is left to inference.

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