get_prices

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the API is public and no authentication is required, which is a useful safety trait. However, it does not disclose potential rate limits, error handling, data freshness, or the exact return format. This is a simple read-only operation, so the lack of deeper behavioral detail is a minimal gap, but it still does not fully cover the necessary transparency.

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?

The description is highly concise, consisting of two sentences that immediately state the purpose and the key prerequisite (public API, no auth). Every word serves a purpose; there is no fluff or repetition, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Although the tool is simple and schema covers parameters, the description does not explain the return values or output format, and there is no output schema. This omission places a burden on the description to describe what the caller receives, which it fails to do. The description is otherwise complete for a basic price lookup, but the lack of return information prevents a higher score.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters, including defaults and examples. The description adds no additional semantic information beyond what is already in the schema. Therefore, per the baseline for high schema coverage, the score is 3.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Get current cryptocurrency prices from Coinbase.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that is easily distinguished from sibling tools like get_portfolio or buy_crypto. The scope is explicit, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

The description provides clear context by stating the tool uses a public API and requires no authentication, which helps an agent understand when it can be used. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool compared to sibling tools, so it lacks explicit exclusionary guidance. This fits 'clear context, no exclusions'.

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