get_token_price

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It only lists outputs (price, market cap, etc.) but does not mention error handling, rate limits, data freshness, or permission requirements. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation-free tool.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words. Every part is relevant.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the basic return fields but omits details like real-time vs delayed data, pagination, or error scenarios. It is minimally viable for a simple tool but could be more complete.

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 100% as the parameter 'token' is documented with examples in the schema. The description adds 'for any cryptocurrency' but does not provide additional constraints or formatting beyond the schema's CoinGecko token ID hint. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 gets price, market cap, 24h change, and volume for cryptocurrencies. The verb 'Get' and resource 'cryptocurrency price data' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like get_gas_fees (gas) and get_fear_greed (sentiment).

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 says 'for any cryptocurrency' but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_trending or get_global_market. Context is implied but no explicit when/when-not or sibling comparison.

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