get_crypto_quote

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It mentions the return behavior (all cryptos if no tickers specified) but does not disclose read-only nature, rate limits, data freshness, or any side effects. Minimal transparency beyond the tool's name.

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 well-structured: a single-sentence purpose, followed by a note on default behavior, and a clear parameter specification. No unnecessary words or 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 that there is only one optional parameter and an output schema exists, the description adequately covers the tool's interface and behavior. It explains the default return of all cryptos and parameter format. Minor gap: no mention of output structure, but output schema likely covers that.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining the 'tickers' parameter: comma-separated crypto tickers, with examples and default behavior (omit for all). This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 states 'Get current top-of-book crypto prices', which clearly specifies the verb (get), resource (crypto prices), and the specific type (top-of-book). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_crypto_prices', which could be confused. A brief distinction would improve clarity.

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 such as 'get_crypto_prices' or 'get_realtime_price'. The description only explains the tool's behavior without context for selection.

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