crypto_js_spot

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds that one request returns data at a specific moment and that the return type is pandas.DataFrame, which is useful context. It does not describe rate limits, pagination, or what specific fields are included, but given the simple read-only nature, this is adequate.

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: two short sentences plus a URL and return type. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. The URL is arguably supplementary but not excessive. It earns a 4 rather than 5 because the first sentence closely repeats the annotation title, adding slight redundancy.

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 there is no output schema and no parameters, the description should explain what data is returned (e.g., columns, supported coins, time precision). It mentions 'mainstream cryptocurrencies' and 'a specific moment' but does not detail the DataFrame's contents or whether it covers one coin or many. This leaves gaps for an agent deciding if this tool fulfills a request.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully defines the input. According to the rubric, 0 parameters merits a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but none is needed.

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 it provides real-time market data for mainstream cryptocurrencies and returns a point-in-time snapshot. It distinguishes from sibling crypto tools by indicating 'spot' (实时行情) and referencing a specific data source. However, it lacks a strong action verb like 'list' or 'retrieve', making it less explicit than the highest standard.

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 implies usage for real-time cryptocurrency spot data, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., historical data tools like crypto_bitcoin_hold_report). No alternatives are mentioned, and no when-not-to-use conditions are stated.

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