get_crypto_price

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It accurately discloses the behavior (returning price, 24h change, market cap) and implies a read-only operation. However, it does not mention error behavior for invalid coin IDs, data freshness, or rate limits—context that would strengthen transparency for an unannotated tool.

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 sentence with a parenthetical example. Every word earns its place—the verb, resource, return fields, and sample use are all included with no filler. The description is front-loaded with the core action.

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 2-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential return values (price, 24h change, market cap) that an agent would need. It does not mention the default vsCurrency (already in the schema) or edge-case behavior, but the missing details are minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents both coinId and vsCurrency with examples and clarifications. The description adds only an illustrative example ('bitcoin → try') and does not provide additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, matching the baseline of 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 states a specific verb ('döndürür' = returns), a precise resource (a cryptocurrency's price), and the exact data returned (current price, 24-hour change, market cap). The example 'bitcoin → try' and the word 'kripto' clearly distinguish it from fiat/exchange-rate siblings.

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 makes the context clear: use for a single cryptocurrency's current price in a given currency. It does not explicitly exclude batch scenarios or name get_multi_crypto_price as an alternative, so it falls short of a 5, but the singular phrasing and example give sufficient contextual guidance.

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