crypto_daily

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes only the source provider and daily granularity; it does not mention the required API key/authentication, Alpha Vantage's known rate limits, or what the daily history returns (gaps in coverage, ordering).

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, but its brevity is under-specification rather than efficiency — there is room for one clause on required params and how it differs from sibling history tools.

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 3-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions and no output schema, the description leaves the agent without required parameter meaning, authentication expectations, or differentiation from a dense crowd of crypto price siblings. It is far from sufficient to invoke correctly on the first try.

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% and the description mentions no parameters at all. The three parameters — symbol, market, and api_key — are entirely undocumented, and the meaning of 'market' (e.g. USD vs other quote currencies) is left to guesswork despite materially changing the output.

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 daily crypto price history') plus the data provider (Alpha Vantage), so the agent knows it is a historical daily time-series tool. It does not distinguish itself from siblings such as crypto_coin_history, crypto_price, or cmc_quotes, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone which crypto tool to pick.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus the many overlapping crypto siblings (crypto_price, crypto_coin_history, coincap_asset_detail, coinpaprika_coin) or the analogous stock_daily. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no alternative routing.

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