coincap_asset_detail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and largely fails it. It says nothing about data freshness/currency, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether the id must be a CoinCap slug; it also implies a return shape without stating it.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero wasted words. Slightly terse rather than bloated, but structurally sound.

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?

For a one-parameter lookup with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essentials but leaves the agent guessing about the returned fields beyond the three named, data currency, and how it differs from coincap_assets/coincap_rates. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 100% and the single 'id' param is documented there with examples ('bitcoin, ethereum'), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description's 'price, volume, market cap' listing describes outputs, not the parameter, adding no semantic value over the 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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed crypto asset info') plus the data categories returned (price, volume, market cap). It is clear what the tool does, though it never names the sibling tools (coincap_assets, coincap_rates) it must be distinguished from.

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?

Usage is only implied: the required single 'id' parameter and the word 'detail' suggest this is the per-asset lookup counterpart to coincap_assets. There is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusion of sibling endpoints, and no note about when to prefer the many other crypto providers in the catalog.

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