get_last_crypto_trade

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

The annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating this is a safe read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this—it specifies 'most recent trade' and 'crypto pair,' which helps scope the query. However, it doesn't disclose other traits like rate limits, error handling, or data freshness, which would be useful given the real-time nature implied by 'most recent.' No contradiction with annotations exists.

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—a single sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence ('Get,' 'most recent trade,' 'crypto pair') contributes essential information without redundancy.

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 complexity (3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema details provided in context), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on parameters, error cases, or output format. The presence of an output schema (as noted in context signals) might help, but without seeing it, the description alone is incomplete for reliable use.

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%, meaning parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description mentions 'crypto pair,' which hints at the 'from_' and 'to' parameters as currency symbols, but it doesn't explain their format (e.g., 'BTC/USD'), required values, or the purpose of the 'params' object. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how to invoke the tool correctly.

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's purpose: 'Get the most recent trade for a crypto pair.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('most recent trade'), and domain ('crypto pair'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar siblings like 'get_last_trade' or 'get_last_forex_quote', which is why it doesn't earn a 5.

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 alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_last_trade' (which might be for stocks) or 'get_last_forex_quote', nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. This lack of context leaves the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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