crypto-price

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose genuinely useful traits beyond the schema: USD-only scope, a $0.010 per call cost, and x402/USDC payment rails. It says nothing about caching/latency, rate limits, or what the response payload looks like, so gaps remain for a paid endpoint.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and covered assets, then usage, then pricing – a sensible information hierarchy in three compact segments. Branding ('Xynaptic') and the bracketed price tag add a little noise but no full sentence is wasted.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must stand alone; it compensates by enumerating the payload contents (prices, 24h changes, breadth, top movers) and the currency constraint. Remaining gaps – return shape specifics and error/payment-failure behavior for a paid call – are minor for a read-only snapshot.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The single 'params' object and its nested 'market'/'prices' entries are documented only by example strings in the schema, and the description adds no interpretation of them (notably it never explains that these read like output fields rather than inputs).

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?

States a specific resource and scope: a real-time snapshot of six named crypto assets (BTC, ETH, SOL, ADA, LINK, DOT) with 24h changes, breadth and top movers, and pins the currency to USD. It explicitly routes to crypto-global for market context, but never addresses the overlap with the sibling crypto-movers, even though it advertises 'top movers' as part of its own payload.

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?

'Use for a real-time price snapshot of major crypto assets' gives a clear positive trigger, and 'For market context use crypto-global' names an explicit alternative with the condition that selects it. Only crypto-movers, the closest sibling given the 'top movers' feature, is left unaddressed.

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