textokit_crypto_prices

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the two things an agent most needs: cost (0.001 USDC per call) and the payment mechanism (x402 on Base, from your wallet). It stops short of stating what happens on payment failure, whether calls are retried or charged twice, or what the payload looks like.

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?

Three short sentences: purpose first, then price/mechanism, then the free alternative. Nothing is repeated and nothing is wasted.

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 one-parameter read tool with a fully described schema, the essentials are covered: what it returns conceptually (USD prices), what it costs, and a free alternative. The notable gap is the absence of an output schema paired with no description of the response shape, but the risk of misinvocation is low.

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% for the single 'coins' parameter, so the schema already explains the comma-separated CoinGecko ID format and the 1–20 limit. The description adds nothing about parameter syntax or failure modes for invalid IDs, so baseline 3 applies.

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: prices of cryptocurrencies denominated in USD. That is clear enough to separate it from the text-processing siblings, but it never explicitly contrasts with the closest neighbors (textokit_fx_rates, textokit_dolar_ar), leaving the crypto-vs-fiat boundary to inference.

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 only routing guidance is 'Free sample: textokit_sample', which is a useful escape hatch but not a when-to-use rule. Nothing says when to prefer this over textokit_fx_rates or textokit_dolar_ar, nor what prerequisites (wallet balance) are needed before calling.

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