coinpaprika_coin

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says nothing about rate limits, whether the response is cached/fresh, error behavior for unknown IDs, or what 'detailed info' actually includes. 'Detailed info' is a placeholder, not disclosure.

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. No waste. It is under-specified rather than bloated, so conciseness is fine; the issue is elsewhere.

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 single-param detail-fetch tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at least sketch what 'detailed info' returns (price, market cap, supply, links?) or note freshness. As written, an agent cannot predict the response shape or when this beats coinpaprika_ticker.

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 schema itself gives the ID format example ('btc-bitcoin, eth-ethereum'). The description adds nothing beyond what the schema already provides, but baseline 3 applies when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clear verb+resource ('Get detailed info about a cryptocurrency') but does not differentiate itself from siblings like coinpaprika_ticker, coinpaprika_global, coinlore_coin, or crypto_coin. Nothing tells an agent why it should pick this specific detail tool over the neighboring ticker/global tools.

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 guidance, no prerequisites, no mention of alternatives. In a crowded crypto tool namespace (coinpaprika_ticker, coinpaprika_global, coincap_asset_detail, coinlore_coin, crypto_coin, crypto_price), the absence of routing guidance is a real gap.

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