get_crypto_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. It discloses that the tool retrieves data (read-only), lists returned fields, and includes an example. However, it does not mention authentication needs, rate limits, caching behavior, or potential side effects, which are gaps for a tool without annotation support.

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 well-organized with 'Args' and 'Returns' sections and a useful example. Slightly longer than minimal, but the example adds clarity. Each sentence contributes value.

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 has an output schema (indicated but not shown), so the description's return field list is adequate. Combined with the parameter description and example, it fully explains usage for a simple read operation. No critical gaps identified.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains that the 'symbol' parameter accepts crypto symbols or CoinGecko IDs, with concrete examples. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's bare type definition.

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 name 'get_crypto_info' clearly indicates retrieving information, and the description states 'Get detailed information about a cryptocurrency' with specific data points (price, market cap, volume, 24h changes). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_trending_coins' or 'search_crypto_coins' which 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?

The description is self-contained but does not explicitly compare to sibling tools or specify when to use this versus alternatives. It provides an example but no guidance on prerequisites or exclusion criteria, relying on implicit understanding from the tool's name.

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