get_global_stats

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It explains what data is returned and that it is a 'formatted summary', but it does not detail the output format (e.g., JSON structure, units, if it's a string) or any potential side effects, rate limits, or authentication needs. It is fairly clear for a read-only tool without parameters but lacks some depth.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and lists the key data points without unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value, and it is succinct.

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 simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description covers the main returned data points. However, it lacks details on whether data is real-time, any usage limits, or the exact output format. It is nearly complete but could improve slightly.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema coverage is 100% by default. The rubric states a baseline of 4 for 0 parameters. The description does not need to add parameter meaning, so this score reflects the baseline due to no parameters.

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 retrieves aggregate crypto market statistics with a specific list of data points (market cap, volume, dominance percentages, etc.). It uses a specific verb 'Get' and the resource is clearly defined as global crypto market stats. It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing it returns the entire market summary in one call, unlike other tools that might focus on individual coins or detailed market overview.

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 implies usage as a single call for overall market stats (e.g., 'entire crypto market in one call'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like get_market_overview. No guidance on exclusions or prerequisites is provided. It gives a hint but lacks clear directives.

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