crypto_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description's one contribution is attributing the source to CoinGecko, which meaningfully disambiguates it from CoinPaprika/CoinLore/CoinCap siblings; it says nothing about result limits, rate limiting, or result shape.

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. It is efficient, though efficiency here shades into under-specification rather than optimal density.

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?

No output schema and no parameter docs, so the description carries the full burden and does not meet it. An agent cannot tell what a search hit contains (id, symbol, name) or that the returned identifier is what other crypto tools expect.

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% on the single `query` parameter, and the description does not compensate. It never states whether `query` matches coin names, ticker symbols, or CoinGecko slugs, nor whether partial or case-insensitive matches are supported.

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+resource pair (search / cryptocurrencies) and names the data provider (CoinGecko). It is understandable in isolation, but it gives no hint of what distinguishes it from the many other crypto siblings such as crypto_coin, crypto_trending, or cmc_listings.

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 guidance on when to pick this over crypto_coin, crypto_price, crypto_trending, cmc_listings, or the coinpaprika/coinlore alternatives. Nothing tells the agent whether search results are a lookup step whose output feeds another tool, or a standalone answer.

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