screen_crypto

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description does not add meaningful behavioral context beyond restating that it screens and returns results. It provides no additional details about default limits, result structure, rate limits, or any side effects, which would have added value on top of the annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately communicates the tool's purpose and primary output. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or 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 a rich input schema with examples and a dedicated output schema, the description need not explain mechanics. It correctly identifies the tool's domain and filter-based behavior, which is sufficient context for an agent to select the tool. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit guidance on sorting or default columns, but these are covered in the schema.

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 schema fully documents parameters like filters, limit, columns, sort_by, and sort_order. The description mentions 'specified filters' but adds no parameter-specific meaning, which matches the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Screen') with an explicit resource ('cryptocurrencies') and scope ('technical and market criteria'). It also states the outcome ('Returns cryptocurrencies matching the specified filters'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like screen_stocks and screen_forex by asset class.

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 clearly implies this tool is for screening cryptocurrency assets, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. It lacks any mention of sibling tools such as screen_stocks or rank_by_ta, so guidance on when-not-to-use is absent.

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