get_last_crypto_trade

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. The description only states what the tool does at a high level without any information about rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, error conditions, or what format the trade data will be returned in. This is inadequate for a tool that presumably makes external API calls.

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 extremely concise at just one sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and uses clear, direct language. While it's arguably too brief given the tool's complexity, it earns full marks for conciseness.

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 tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the single-sentence description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what data will be returned, how to interpret parameters, what the tool's limitations are, or how it differs from similar sibling tools. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and three parameters (from_, to, params), the description provides no information about what these parameters mean, what format they should be in, or what values are acceptable. The description mentions 'crypto pair' which hints at the relationship between from_ and to, but doesn't explain the params parameter at all.

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 purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('most recent trade for a crypto pair'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_last_trade' or 'get_last_forex_quote', which appear to serve similar functions for different asset classes.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools that appear related (e.g., 'get_last_trade', 'get_last_forex_quote', 'get_snapshot_crypto_book'), there's no indication of when this specific crypto trade tool is appropriate versus other market data tools.

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