get_market_overview

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

With no annotations, the description provides good transparency: it specifies the return fields (price, market cap, 24h change, volume), sorting (market cap descending), and default limit. It does not mention side effects, permissions, or rate limits, but for a read-only data retrieval this is acceptable. The description adds value beyond the schema by clarifying the output structure.

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, each concise and informative. The first sentence states the core functionality, the second expands on defaults, sorting, and use case. No redundancy, every sentence serves a purpose.

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 (2 optional params, no output schema), the description covers the main purpose, returned data, ordering, default, and use case. It does not mention potential errors, maximum limit, or pagination, but for a quick snapshot tool it is sufficient. Missing explicit differentiation from siblings, but the purpose is clear.

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% with descriptions for both parameters. The description reinforces the 'limit' parameter's meaning and default but does not add new information beyond what the schema already provides. For 'vs_currency', the description's mention of 'price' hints at its effect, but the schema already states 'Target currency'. No significant added value.

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 that it gets top cryptocurrencies ranked by market cap, listing specific fields (price, market cap, 24h change, 24h volume) and the sorting order. It distinguishes from siblings like get_coin_details (specific coin) and get_global_stats (global stats), making the tool's scope unambiguous.

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 'useful for a quick snapshot of the overall market or identifying top performers,' which implies usage context but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. For example, it could mention that for historical data use get_price_history or for specific coins use get_coin_details. The guidance is vague.

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