cmc_quotes

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavior. It implies a read operation but does not specify the nature of the data (real-time/historical), return format, authentication requirements, or rate limits. The presence of an 'api_key' parameter is not explained, leaving the agent unsure about mandatory input.

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 sentence with no fluff, making it concise. However, it is too brief to convey essential information, leaning toward under-specification rather than efficient conciseness.

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 zero annotations, no output schema, and four undocumented parameters, the description fails to provide enough context for the agent to effectively use the tool. Critical aspects like parameter semantics, required authentication, and expected response are missing, leading to low completeness.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description adds no meaning to the four parameters (symbol, id, convert, api_key). It does not explain their roles, required formats, or whether they are optional. The agent must rely solely on parameter names, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 the tool gets 'cryptocurrency quotes from CoinMarketCap,' which is a specific verb and resource. However, it lacks differentiation from sibling cmc_* tools like cmc_global_metrics, cmc_info, cmc_listings, and cmc_trending, as it doesn't clarify what 'quotes' entails (e.g., price, volume, market cap). It is clear but not distinctive.

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. There is no mention of context, exclusions, or prerequisites (e.g., requiring an API key). Among many crypto-related siblings, the agent has no basis for choosing this tool over others.

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