Crypto quotes

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open world). The description adds genuinely non-structured behavior: a missing side returns null/no_data, sizes are in base units, and large result sets are stored rather than returned, yielding a result_id. The result-truncation disclosure is the kind of trait annotations cannot express.

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?

Three compact, front-loaded sentences with no filler: purpose, windowing, then the result-storage caveat. Slightly dense in the first clause (sizes/no_data parenthetical) but each sentence carries distinct information.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so for the two most surprising cases: null sides and stored results via result_id. Pagination via page_token is only covered in the schema, not the description, leaving a small gap for a tool that can return truncated data.

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%, so every parameter (start, end, lookback, sort, tickers, page_token) is already documented in the schema, including the PT15M lookback default. The description's windowing sentence largely restates that, adding no format or constraint detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific resource and temporal scope: 'Historical best bid and ask for crypto pairs.' The word 'Historical' implicitly separates it from crypto_latest_quotes and crypto_orderbooks, but no sibling is named explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

'Window by start/end or lookback (default PT15M)' gives invocation guidance, and the results_query handoff tells the agent what to do with truncated output. However, there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-alternative statement (e.g. historical quotes vs crypto_latest_quotes or crypto_orderbooks), so usage is only implied.

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