coingeckotokeninfoagent_get_token_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'provides comprehensive cryptocurrency data' but lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or data freshness. For a data-fetching tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 concise and front-loaded, with two sentences that efficiently convey the core functionality. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second elaborates on the data provided. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for data types).

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 complexity (fetching detailed token data), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It outlines the data scope but misses behavioral aspects like rate limits or error cases. For a tool with one parameter and high schema coverage, it's adequate but has clear gaps in usage and transparency.

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 100% description coverage, clearly documenting the 'coingecko_id' parameter. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'using CoinGecko ID,' which is redundant. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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 detailed token information and market data using CoinGecko ID.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('token information and market data'), and key input ('CoinGecko ID'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_token_price_multi' or 'get_trending_coins,' which likely serve different purposes.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions 'comprehensive cryptocurrency data,' but it doesn't clarify scenarios where this tool is preferred over siblings (e.g., 'get_token_price_multi' for prices only or 'get_trending_coins' for trending tokens). Without such context, agents may struggle to select the right tool.

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