cmc_listings

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is known. The description adds nothing beyond that: no note on API key requirements, rate limits, data freshness, default page size, or what happens when limit is omitted.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity crosses into under-specification rather than well-judged economy.

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, 0% parameter documentation, and no annotations explaining data semantics, the description should carry more. An agent calling this cannot tell the default result count, whether an API key is mandatory, or how the output relates to cmc_quotes.

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% — none of the three parameters (limit, api_key, convert) are documented anywhere. The description supplies zero compensation: no default limit, no mention that api_key may be required, no hint at what 'convert' accepts (currency code or symbol).

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 verb and resource ('Get latest cryptocurrency listings') from a named source, so the agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not differentiate itself from close siblings such as cmc_quotes, cmc_trending, crypto_top_coins or coincap_assets, so rank ordering versus price quotes versus coin detail is left ambiguous.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative is mentioned. In a family with cmc_quotes, cmc_trending, cmc_global_metrics, coinlore_tickers and coincap_assets, an agent has no basis for choosing this tool over those.

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