top_coins

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation ('Get') but does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or behavior with an invalid or missing API key. 'With price and stats' gives a minimal hint but is largely covered by the output schema.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant or irrelevant information. Every word contributes to the core 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?

The tool is simple, optional parameters are fully documented in the schema, and an output schema exists to detail return fields. The description is sufficient for basic use, though it could mention auth expectations; however, the structured data compensates for most gaps.

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 provides 100% parameter coverage with descriptions for 'limit', 'api_key', and 'currency', so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, and it does not mention any parameter interplay or constraints.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly defines the resource ('top N cryptocurrencies by market cap') with an outcome ('with price and stats'). It effectively distinguishes itself from siblings like 'price' and 'trending' by emphasizing market-cap ranking.

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 explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'trending' or 'market_overview'. The use case is only implied by the purpose statement, and no exclusions or alternative references are mentioned.

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