get_crypto_price

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait: the failure mode ('Returns 0.0 if the price cannot be fetched'), which alerts the agent to silent failure. It omits other relevant behavior such as CoinGecko rate limits, auth/key requirements, and whether the value is cached or live.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in one sentence, and the Args/Returns/Example structure is standard and easy to scan. The two example calls are mildly redundant with the Args block but still earn their place by showing argument formation.

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 two-parameter read tool with an output schema present, the description covers purpose, both parameters, and the failure return value, which is sufficient to call it correctly. It could be more complete by noting rate limits or how to discover valid cryptocurrency ids.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: 'cryptocurrency' is defined as the CoinGecko id with concrete examples ('bitcoin', 'ethereum'), and 'currency' as the fiat or crypto target ('usd', 'inr'). The schema-declared default of 'inr' is not restated, but both parameters are otherwise well explained.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get the current price of a cryptocurrency in a specified currency') and names the data source (CoinGecko API). No siblings exist to disambiguate against, and the scope of the operation is unambiguous from the first sentence.

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?

Usage is implied by the examples (bitcoin/usd, ethereum/inr) and the required/optional split, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist (e.g., historical prices). Adequate but with an obvious gap.

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