get_multi_crypto_price

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It clearly conveys a read-only price lookup and the multi-currency batching behavior, but it does not mention rate limits, invalid coin ID handling, data source, or response format. For a simple public price tool this is adequate but not rich.

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 two short sentences with the core behavior front-loaded and a concrete example in the second sentence. No filler or repetition of schema content.

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 two-parameter tool with no nested objects and full schema coverage, the description plus schema is sufficient to call it correctly. A minor gap is the absence of any return-shape description, but the output is simple enough to infer from the purpose.

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%, so the parameters are already documented. The description's example reinforces coinIds and vsCurrency values (TRY), but it adds no semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, such as accepted currency codes or the maxItems limit.

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 uses a specific verb ('döndürür' / returns), names the resource (multiple cryptocurrency prices), and scopes the behavior to a single query. The example with bitcoin, ethereum and solana in TRY makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and implicitly distinguishes it from the single-coin sibling get_crypto_price.

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 implies the use case: retrieve several crypto prices at once instead of making separate calls. However, it never explicitly names an alternative (e.g., get_crypto_price for a single coin) or states when not to use this tool, so the guidance relies entirely on inference.

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