get_crypto_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It describes the action as 'retrieve', implying a read operation, but does not detail rate limits, caching behavior, or any side effects. The return type is mentioned but without specifics on what fields are included, leaving the agent with limited information.

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 two sentences and a clear docstring structure. Every part serves a purpose: stating the action, specifying the parameter with example, and noting the return type. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 simplicity (one parameter, output schema exists), the description covers the essential purpose and parameter. However, it lacks context about data freshness (is it real-time or delayed?) and any prerequisites (e.g., must ticker exist?). The output schema likely provides return details, but without annotations, some behavioral aspects remain unclear.

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 description adds significant value to the parameter by providing an example ('BTC') and clarifying that 'ticker' is a symbol. Since the schema has 0% description coverage, this explanation compensates well. It could be improved by noting case sensitivity or format requirements, but it is effective enough for correct invocation.

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 action (retrieve) and resource (fast information for a specific cryptocurrency). It directly names the resource type and uses a relevant example ('BTC'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_fast_info' or 'get_info', which may also provide similar fast info for other asset types.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. There is no mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or context such as whether this is for quick snapshots while other tools are for historical data. The agent would need to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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