coingeckotokeninfoagent_get_category_data

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions retrieving 'comprehensive information' but lacks critical behavioral details: whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'get'), rate limits, authentication needs, pagination, error handling, or data freshness. The description doesn't contradict annotations (none exist), but it's insufficient for a tool that likely involves API calls to an external service.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences that efficiently convey the core functionality. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and follows with specifics. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating scope from data details.

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 complexity of fetching market data from an external API, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on response format, error cases, rate limits, and how it differs from sibling tools. For a tool with potential behavioral nuances, this is inadequate despite the simple parameter 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%, with the single parameter 'order' fully documented in the schema (including enum values and default). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without adding extra 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 the tool's purpose: 'Get market data for all cryptocurrency categories from CoinGecko' with specific details about what data is retrieved (market cap, volume, market cap change, top coins, etc.). It distinguishes from some siblings like 'get_token_info' or 'get_top_token_holders' by focusing on categories rather than individual tokens, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_categories_list' which might be a simpler list operation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose this over 'get_categories_list' (which likely provides a basic list) or 'get_tokens_by_category' (which might get tokens within a specific category). No exclusions, prerequisites, or comparative context are provided.

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