crypto_price

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It clearly states it returns live price, 24h change, market cap, volume, and all-time high. It implies a read-only, real-time operation. However, it does not disclose potential rate limits, data freshness guarantees, or authentication needs, which would elevate it to a 5.

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 relatively concise: one sentence for purpose, one line for returned fields, and a brief args section with examples. It is front-loaded with key information. However, the three example lines could be condensed into a single sentence, making it slightly tighter.

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 has a single parameter and an output schema (mentioned in context signals but not displayed), the description adequately covers the use case. It lists key return fields and gives usage examples. It is sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

The input schema has a single required string parameter 'symbol' with 0% description coverage. The description compensates well by explaining it is a crypto ticker and providing explicit examples (BTC, ETH, SOL, etc.), clarifying the expected format. This adds meaning beyond the schema alone.

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 'Get live cryptocurrency price in USD' with a specific verb and resource. The list of returned fields (price, 24h change, market cap, etc.) and the examples differentiate it from sibling tools like crypto_historical or stock_quote.

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 examples of typical symbols (BTC, ETH, SOL) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., crypto_historical for historical data). Usage is implied through context, but no direct guidance on when-not-to-use or alternatives.

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