crypto_price

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds only the data source (CoinGecko), which is useful context but does not cover rate limits, authentication needs, or response characteristics.

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 sentence with zero wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded and the description is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 simple price-fetching tool with no output schema, the description is terse and omits key context: it does not explain the return format (e.g., object keyed by coin ID), default currency behavior, or when to prefer this over other crypto tools. 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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters (ids and vs_currencies) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter usage or defaults (e.g., which currency is assumed if vs_currencies is omitted).

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 a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'cryptocurrency prices' and names the source CoinGecko. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the many sibling crypto-price tools (e.g., crypto_coin, coinlore_tickers), so an agent may not know when to choose this one specifically.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description offers no context about cases where this is preferred over other crypto price tools in the sibling list, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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