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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool returns capabilities, patterns, rules, and sequences, and clarifies it is about the server not crypto data. It lacks explicit mention of being read-only or non-destructive, but the nature of a capabilities endpoint implies safety, so it is mostly transparent.

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?

Concise: three sentences, each essential. First sentence states function, second gives usage cues, third clarifies scope. No fluff or repetition, front-loaded with purpose.

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?

Given no output schema, the description provides a good high-level overview of what is returned (capabilities, patterns, rules, sequences). It also explains when to use and what it does not cover (crypto data). For a simple capabilities tool, this is nearly complete; could benefit from specifying that output is structured (e.g., JSON), but not critical.

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?

There are zero parameters and schema coverage is 100% (empty object). The description adds meaning by explaining what the tool returns, which is valuable beyond the schema. Baseline 4 is appropriate as there is nothing to add about parameters.

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 retrieves server capabilities, workflow patterns, validation rules, and tool sequences. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by noting it describes the MCP server itself, not crypto data, which differentiates it from the data-focused 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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool: 'Use FIRST to onboard as an agent', and specifies exact queries like 'what can this server do', 'how should I chain these tools', 'what are the parameter rules'. This leaves no ambiguity about its appropriate context.

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

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

Describes return format (change records with affected id and type) and pagination behavior (empty page means no more changes). Declares read-only and mentions API key. Lacks details on pagination mechanics like total pages or rate limits, but sufficient for a simple listing.

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?

Single paragraph, front-loaded with main action, followed by details, use cases, alternatives, read-only note, param info, and requirement. No wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (two nullable params, no output schema), the description covers the tool's purpose, usage, parameters, and output structure. Explains empty page case. Complete for a paginated changelog listing.

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?

Parameters page and limit are fully described in the schema. The description restates defaults and purpose, adding minimal context beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 lists IDs of recent changes (additions, renames, delistings) as a paginated feed, newest first. It provides specific use cases and distinguishes from sibling tool getCoins.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (sync/reconcile dataset, check recent changes) and when not to use (use getCoins for full list). Also mentions API key requirement (Starter+ plan).

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and successfully states that the tool is read-only and requires no API key. It also clarifies that coinId must be canonical and resolved first, though it does not describe error behavior or rate limits.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose first, then exclusions, then the canonical-id requirement and auth note. Every sentence adds useful routing or usage information without filler.

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 one-parameter read tool with a fully documented schema, the description is complete enough to call correctly. It covers purpose, exclusions, ID resolution, and read-only/no-key behavior even though no output schema exists.

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% and the single coinId parameter is already documented in detail, including its 'symbol-name' format and examples. The description reinforces the canonical-id requirement and resolveId step, but largely repeats what the schema already provides.

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 names a specific verb and resource, then enumerates the returned content: description, links, team, and tags. It explicitly distinguishes the tool from getTickersById by stating it does not include price or market cap, so an agent can select it without opening the schema.

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?

It gives concrete use cases such as 'tell me about Uniswap' and 'what is this project', explicitly excludes price/market-cap requests and routes those to getTickersById. It also tells the agent to resolve symbols or names via resolveId before calling.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully states read-only behavior, that no API key is required, and that limit caps the result set, but it omits timeline ordering, whether past and future events are mixed, and what happens on an unknown coinId or an empty timeline.

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 tight sentences: capability and returned fields first, then usage triggers, then the sibling alternative and safety/parameter notes. Every sentence contributes and nothing is padded.

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 read tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description covers purpose, returned content, auth requirements, and an alternative. The only real gap is ordering/pagination semantics of the event timeline, which an agent might still need.

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% and both parameters are fully documented in the schema, including the max of 250 and the canonical slug format with resolution guidance. The description's 'coinId is a canonical id, limit caps results' merely reinforces the schema rather than adding new semantics, so the 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?

Specific verb ('Get') plus resource ('timeline of events for a coin'), with the event types enumerated (launches, partnerships, hard forks, conference talks) and the returned shape stated (dates and descriptions). It also explicitly separates itself from getTickersById, so an agent can distinguish it from price-oriented siblings without opening any schema.

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?

Names concrete trigger phrasings ('what is happening with X', 'upcoming events for Ethereum'), gives an explicit alternative for a different intent ('For prices use getTickersById'), and the coinId note directs the agent to resolveId/search first when the id is unknown. Both when-to-use and a sibling routing rule are present.

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

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden; it discloses read-only behavior, no API key requirement, and the shape of the return value ('venue names only'), which is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs. It stops short of deeper traits like rate limits, pagination, or empty-result behavior, so not a 5.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then example phrasings, then sibling routing, then behavioral notes. No filler; the multiple example queries all serve disambiguation rather than padding.

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 two-parameter, no-output-schema lookup tool, nothing an agent needs is missing: purpose, trigger phrases, alternatives, id format guidance, and auth/read-only status are all present, and the return shape is stated inline.

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 both parameters are already fully documented in the schema, including the canonical slug format and the limit default/max. The description's 'coinId is a canonical id, limit caps results' restates that without adding new syntax or constraints, so the 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 and resource ('List the exchanges that LIST a specific coin') and narrows the output explicitly to 'venue names only'. It also distinguishes itself from getCoinMarkets and getTickersById by naming what those return instead.

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?

Provides concrete trigger utterances ('which exchanges list X', 'is X on Coinbase', 'where is X listed') plus explicit routing rules: getCoinMarkets for per-market price/volume, getTickersById for live price. Both when-to-use and when-to-use-something-else are covered.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: declares read-only, no API key required, and warns that coinId must be canonical and is not derivable from the ticker. It does not mention rate limits, pagination behavior beyond the limit cap, or result ordering, so it falls short of exhaustive disclosure.

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?

Four short sentences, each earning its place: purpose, usage triggers, sibling routing, and behavioral/parameter notes. The core purpose is front-loaded and nothing is redundant with the schema.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing the return shape (market, trading pair, price, 24h volume). Combined with the identifier caveat and the sibling pointer, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine semantic value: it explains why coinId must be canonical (not derivable from symbol), what quotes means (quote currencies), and that limit caps results. It stops short of documenting defaults/maxima, which the schema already covers.

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 and resource ("get the specific markets and trading pairs where a coin trades") plus the return payload (per-market price, 24h volume). It explicitly contrasts with the sibling getCoinExchanges ("For just the list of exchange names use getCoinExchanges"), so the agent can route correctly without opening a schema.

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?

Gives concrete user-intent triggers ("where can I buy X", "X price on Binance", "best market for X") and names the alternative tool with the condition that selects it. The read-only/no-API-key note further removes invocation uncertainty.

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

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

With no annotations, the description still discloses that the operation is read-only and requires a Starter+ plan with COINPAPRIKA_API_KEY. It also states the limit cap and default, but does not cover rate limits, error behavior, or pagination.

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 dense and front-loads purpose, alternatives, and auth requirements. It is efficient, though the single-paragraph format could be slightly more scannable.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the return fields, required and optional parameters, formats, defaults, max limit, id resolution guidance, alternatives, and plan requirement. Nothing critical is missing.

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 documents all six parameters, including the canonical coinId requirement and interval enum. The description restates formats, defaults, and limits but adds little beyond the schema.

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 and resource: retrieves OHLC candles for a coin, listing the returned fields. It explicitly distinguishes itself from getTickersHistoricalById and getCoinOHLCVLatest.

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?

Gives concrete use cases such as 'daily chart last month' and 'hourly candles since Jan 1', then names alternatives for one past price and the latest candle. The when-to-use and when-to-use-something-else guidance is explicit.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden and does well: it declares read-only behavior, states no API key is required, and confirms the default quote currency. It doesn't discuss rate limits or error behavior for an invalid slug, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

Four short sentences: what it returns, when to use, when to use a different tool, and call prerequisites. Front-loaded and zero filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description still enumerates the returned fields (OHLC plus volume), covers both parameters' constraints, and states auth expectations. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real value by warning that ticker symbols and guessed slugs fail and pointing at resolveId first. It also confirms the quote default, reinforcing rather than merely repeating the schema.

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?

Specific verb and resource ('get the latest full-day OHLC candle') with explicit scope (full-day, not live tick) and the exact fields returned. It distinguishes itself from getCoinOHLCVToday/getCoinOHLCVHistorical and names getTickersById as the live-price alternative.

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?

Gives a concrete use case ('yesterday's candle for BTC'), an explicit exclusion with the sibling to use instead for live spot price, and a prerequisite (resolve a bare symbol with resolveId first). Nothing is left to inference.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does add real value: read-only, no API key required, and the important caveat that the candle is still in progress (so values can change). It stops short of describing the returned fields or any rate/coverage limits.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then routing, then prerequisite. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, alternatives, freshness semantics, and the id-resolution requirement. Only minor gap is not indicating the shape of the returned candle (open/high/low/close/volume, timestamp).

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% and the coinId description already explains the 'symbol-name' slug format and that it is not derivable from the ticker. The description's note about resolveId largely restates the schema, and the 'quote' parameter is never mentioned outside the schema.

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 and resource — the in-progress OHLC candle for today — and immediately separates it from getCoinOHLCVLatest, getCoinOHLCVHistorical, and getTickersById. An agent can pick this tool without opening any schema.

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?

Gives a concrete use case ('today's high and low for ETH') plus explicit routing: spot price goes to getTickersById, past candles to getCoinOHLCVHistorical. It also states the prerequisite that coinId must first be resolved with resolveId.

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

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

Discloses read-only nature, limit capping, and no prices. No annotations present, so description carries burden; lacks pagination details but sufficient for a simple list.

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 sentences, no fluff, front-loaded with primary purpose. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Complete for a simple list tool with one parameter and no output schema. Covers contents, limitations, and usage context.

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?

Only parameter (limit) has full schema coverage; description adds context 'caps the number of coins returned' and reinforces default/max implicitly.

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?

Clearly states the tool lists coins with id, name, symbol, rank. Explicitly distinguishes from price-related siblings (getTickers, getTickersById).

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?

Provides explicit use cases (discover coins, map name to id) and when to avoid (for prices). States read-only and no API key required.

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

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

Declares read-only and describes error conditions. No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Could mention if pagination or rate limits apply, but overall clear.

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?

Description is thorough yet well-structured, front-loading the main purpose. Each sentence provides useful information. Slightly long but justified given the 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?

Fully covers usage, prerequisites, alternatives, param details, and edge cases. No output schema exists, but description doesn't need to explain return values as it's a list of contracts.

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%, but description adds useful context: examples of platformId values, explanation of limit's purpose and cap, and behavior on unknown platformId. Adds value beyond schema.

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?

Clearly states the tool lists token contract addresses for a platform, mapping to CoinPaprika coin ids. Provides specific use cases and distinguishes from sibling tools like getTickerByContract and getHistoricalTickerByContract.

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?

Explicitly instructs to find platformId first via getPlatforms and directs users to alternative tools for single contract price or history. Also explains param behavior and error on unknown platformId.

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

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

No annotations provided, but the description fully covers behavioral aspects: 'Read-only', 'No API key required', and gives an example of the exchangeId parameter value. Discloses what data is returned (details, volume, etc.).

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences plus a short note on read-only and auth. Every sentence adds unique value—purpose, usage guidelines, parameter hint, and behavioral context. No wasted words.

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?

Given 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers all critical aspects: purpose, usage examples, parameter example, read-only safety, auth requirements, and sibling tool differentiation. Completely adequate for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing an example for exchangeId ('such as binance'), which clarifies the parameter's format beyond the schema. Quotes parameter is not elaborated further, but the example for exchangeId justifies a 4.

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 retrieves details for a specific exchange: 24h volume, market count, trust score, links, and fiat support. It provides example queries ('tell me about Binance') and distinguishes from sibling tools like getExchangeMarkets and getExchanges.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('tell me about Binance') and when to use alternatives: 'For the pairs traded there use getExchangeMarkets; find the exchange id first with search or getExchanges.'

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

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

No annotations, so description must cover behavior. It declares read-only, no API key required, and explains limit behavior (caps at max 250). Fully transparent.

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?

Efficiently structured: main purpose, usage examples, parameter details. No redundant sentences. Each sentence adds value.

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?

Despite no output schema, description mentions return fields (pair, base/quote ids, price, volume, category). Also explains relationship with sibling tools for full workflow.

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%, but description adds context: exchangeId is an exchange id like 'binance', quotes is comma-separated with default 'usd', limit default 50 and max 250, enhancing schema.

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?

Description clearly states it lists trading pairs (markets) with specific fields like pair, base/quote coin ids, latest price, 24h volume, category. Distinguishes from getExchangeByID for exchange-level stats, showing clear purpose.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use (e.g., 'what pairs trade on Binance') and when not (use getExchangeByID for trust score). Also instructs to find exchangeId with getExchanges first.

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

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

Discloses read-only nature, no API key requirement, and parameter limits (default/max for limit, format for quotes). No annotations provided, but description fully covers behavioral traits.

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?

Compact yet complete: main purpose first, then usage guidance, then parameter details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given no output schema, description explains what each exchange includes (id, name, trust score, etc.). Covers auth, read-only, and parameter constraints adequately.

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?

Adds meaning beyond schema: explains quotes as 'comma-separated list of quote currencies for the volume figures' with example 'usd,btc', and limit with default/max values.

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?

Description clearly states 'List exchanges tracked by CoinPaprika as a list ranked by rank' with specific fields, distinguishing it from siblings like getExchangeByID and getExchangeMarkets.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use this tool ('top exchanges by volume', 'biggest crypto exchanges') and names alternatives (getExchangeByID, getExchangeMarkets).

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

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

Description states it is read-only, takes no parameters, and needs no API key. This is sufficient given the tool's simplicity, but no additional behavioral details like rate limits are provided.

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?

Two concise sentences front-load the purpose, usage guidelines, and key constraints. No unnecessary information.

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?

Covers the tool's purpose and use cases well, but does not describe the output format (e.g., JSON structure). However, given no output schema, this is a minor gap.

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?

No parameters exist, so baseline 4 is appropriate. Description adds no parameter info, which is fine as schema coverage is 100% with zero parameters.

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?

Description clearly states it provides a global crypto market overview including total market cap, volume, Bitcoin dominance, and market-wide change. It distinguishes from siblings like getTickersById for single coin prices.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use (e.g., 'how is the crypto market doing') and when not to (use getTickersById for single coin). Also mentions read-only and no API key required.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses read-only nature, subscription requirement (Starter+ plan from COINPAPRIKA_API_KEY), and parameter defaults/constraints. However, it does not describe the return format or pagination behavior, which would be helpful given no output schema.

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 dense but well-structured: main purpose first, then use cases, then parameter details. It is slightly verbose but every sentence adds value. Could be tightened but still effective.

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?

Given 7 parameters (3 required), no output schema, and 28 sibling tools, this description is remarkably complete. It covers all parameters with defaults, constraints, and examples, mentions auth requirements, and provides usage context. No gaps for a historical data retrieval tool.

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%, and the description adds significant value beyond schema: clarifies start as required, end as optional defaulting to now, interval default '5m', quote default 'usd', limit default 50 with max 250, and explains platformId and contractAddress with examples.

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 it retrieves historical price and market history by contract address as a time series. It distinguishes from siblings like getTickerByContract (current price) and getTickersHistoricalById (by coin id), making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit use cases ('Use for 'token price on 2024-01-01 by address', 'hourly history for a contract'') and directs to alternatives for current price or by coin ID, offering clear when-to-use guidance.

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

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

The description discloses that the tool is read-only, returns only matching rows (empty list if none), and that all params are optional filters. Without annotations, this provides adequate behavioral 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 concise (few sentences), front-loaded with the main purpose, and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 optional params, no output schema), the description covers purpose, behavior, parameter semantics, and usage examples. It explains return behavior and constraints completely.

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% with descriptions for each parameter. The description adds value by explaining that params are filters, that providing at least one is necessary, and that extra filters narrow results. This clarifies usage beyond the schema.

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 tool is clearly named and the description states 'Cross-reference CoinPaprika ids with external or legacy identifiers', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that focus on single-entity data by emphasizing mapping between multiple identifiers.

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 explicit use cases ('map CoinPaprika id to CoinGecko', 'which coin is this CoinMarketCap id', 'find id for an ISIN'), notes that params are optional but at least one should be provided, and mentions the Business plan requirement. This gives clear when-to-use guidance.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It declares read-only, notes that unknown IDs return not found, and states no API key required. No contradictions, but could mention rate limits or other constraints.

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?

Description is well-structured, starting with purpose, then use cases, then parameter details. Every sentence adds value, no fluff.

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?

With one parameter and no output schema, description lists key return fields and prerequisites. It could be more detailed about exact return structure, but it's sufficient for a profile tool.

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 one parameter, but description adds examples (e.g., 'vitalik-buterin') and behavior on unknown ID, which provides useful context beyond the schema.

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 gets a person's profile by ID, listing specific fields like name, bio, teams, positions, projects, and social accounts. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on people profiles.

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?

Provides explicit use cases like 'who is Vitalik Buterin' and instructions to first find personId via search or resolveId. It clearly states the tool requires an exact ID, not a name, which prevents misuse.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and clearly states read-only, limit caps results, and no API key required. This fully discloses behavioral traits for a safe, bounded operation. There is no contradiction.

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 concise, using three sentences with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the core purpose and provides essential context immediately.

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?

The tool has one parameter, no required fields, and no output schema. The description explains purpose, usage, and safety (read-only, no API key). However, it does not describe the return format or structure of the response, which would be helpful for an agent. Nevertheless, for a simple list tool with rich sibling context, it is nearly complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add new meaning beyond the schema for the limit parameter—it only restates default and max values present in schema. No additional context about how the limit affects results or usage is provided.

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 lists smart-contract platforms (blockchains) indexed by CoinPaprika, with examples (ethereum, bnb, polygon). It distinguishes from siblings like getContracts by noting the platform id is used before calling getContracts, and from other list tools by its specific resource.

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 explicitly provides use cases: 'Use for which chains are supported for contract lookups, list contract platforms, or to pick a platform id before calling getContracts.' It also mentions read-only status, limit caps, and that no API key is required, offering clear guidance on when and how to use.

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

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

No annotations provided, but description covers read-only nature, parameter details, error behavior, and auth requirements. Missing potential rate limits or response size, but adequate for a simple get 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?

Concise, front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then parameter details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description covers all needed context: return fields, optional fields, error case, and auth. No gaps.

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%, and the description adds concrete examples ('defi' for tagId, 'coins,icos' for additionalFields) and clarifies valid values, enhancing understanding beyond the schema.

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 it gets details for one tag by ID, listing returned fields and example use cases. It distinguishes itself from sibling 'getTags' which lists all tags.

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?

Explicitly explains when to use (e.g., 'what coins are in the defi tag') and refers to 'getTags' as alternative to find tagId. Also notes read-only, error on unknown tagId, and no API key required.

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

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

No annotations provided, but the description explicitly says 'Read-only' and details parameter behavior (valid values for additionalFields, limit range). No contradictions.

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 efficient and front-loaded with main purpose. It includes all necessary details without excessive verbosity, though slightly long.

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?

No output schema, but description explains return fields (id, name, coin_counter, ico_counter). Covers parameters, use cases, and distinction from sibling. Complete for a list tool.

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% (both parameters described in schema). The description adds meaning beyond schema by explaining valid values for additionalFields ('coins','icos') and noting limit cap (max 250).

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 'List all CoinPaprika tags' with examples of categories. It distinguishes from the sibling tool getTagById by specifying that getTagById is for coins inside a tag.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'for ''what crypto categories exist'', ''list market sectors'', or to find a tagId before calling getTagById.' Also states when not to use: 'For the coins inside one tag use getTagById.'

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

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

The description states it is read-only and no API key required. No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It could mention rate limits or data freshness, but it's sufficiently transparent.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no superfluous words. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given no output schema, the description hints at return data ('current price and market data') but doesn't detail fields. For a simple tool with 2 params, it's mostly complete.

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% with descriptions. The description adds an example for platformId (eth-ethereum) and clarifies the parameter roles, which is helpful but not essential.

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 gets current price and market data by contract address. It distinguishes from sibling getHistoricalTickerByContract which is for history.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use when you have a contract address' and 'For history use getHistoricalTickerByContract'. Also mentions platformId and contractAddress roles and that no API key is required.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It describes read-only nature, parameter roles (quotes default USD, limit caps results). Could add further details like rate limits or response structure but overall adequate.

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?

Two sentences, no redundancy, front-loaded with purpose and usage. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given 2 optional params, no output schema, no annotations, description sufficiently covers usage, parameter behavior, and safety (read-only). Agent can confidently invoke.

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% with descriptions for both parameters. Description adds default for quotes and clarifies that limit caps results. However, it doesn't add substantial meaning beyond schema, so baseline 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 retrieves current prices, market caps, and 24h changes for top cryptocurrencies by market cap. It provides specific verb 'Get' and resource, and distinguishes from sibling getTickersById.

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?

Explicitly lists use cases like 'top 5 coins', 'top crypto today', and advises using getTickersById for single coins. Also mentions no API key needed.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load, and it does well: it declares read-only behavior and 'No API key required', and it warns that coinId is not derivable from the symbol. It doesn't say what happens on an unresolvable or unknown coinId, which is the remaining behavioral gap.

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 output fields, the sibling exclusion, the parameters and the auth note are all handled in four tight sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded. The example phrasings are compact and help matching rather than padding.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (price, market cap, 24h change, volume) and the currency dimension. It is complete enough to call correctly; only error/edge-case behavior and the shape of multi-currency quotes are absent.

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 baseline is 3; the description still adds meaning by saying coinId is canonical (resolve via resolveId first) and that quotes sets the quote currency with a USD default, a default the schema does not state. It doesn't explain the comma-separated multi-quote behavior or how multiple quotes are returned.

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 names a specific verb and resource: it returns the current price, market cap, 24h change and volume for one coin. It also explicitly routes historical needs to getTickersHistoricalById, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening any schema.

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?

It gives literal trigger phrases ('what is the price of X', 'BTC to USD') and one explicit exclusion that names a sibling: getTickersHistoricalById is the tool for past prices. It also states the prerequisite that a bare symbol must be resolved with resolveId first.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it declares read-only behavior, notes the required Starter+ plan and API key, and specifies defaults and the max limit. It doesn't describe the response structure beyond the three data types, but for a read-only historical query the key behavioral traits are covered.

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 dense but front-loaded: purpose first, then alternatives, then parameter defaults and requirements. Every sentence contributes useful routing or constraint information, though it could be slightly tighter by not repeating schema defaults verbatim.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and six parameters, the description covers the essential context: what it returns (price/market cap/volume snapshots), read-only nature, plan requirement, parameter defaults, and sibling alternatives. It is nearly complete for an agent to call it correctly, with only minor gaps around return shape.

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 documents every parameter. The description adds some value by restating defaults (interval='5m', quote='usd', limit=50/250) and advising to resolve coinId via resolveId, but it mostly repeats what the schema already says; baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource: 'Get a coin's price, market cap and volume at past times as point-in-time snapshots'. It explicitly distinguishes from OHLC candles and names the sibling tools for that case and for current price, so an agent can tell exactly what this tool does versus alternatives.

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?

It gives concrete use cases ('price of BTC last Tuesday', 'ETH market cap on 2024-01-01') and explicitly routes the agent to getCoinOHLCVHistorical for chart candles and getTickersById for current price. The when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance is unambiguous.

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

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

States read-only and that the call is rejected without a valid key. No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It could mention potential error codes or return structure, but current details are sufficient for basic understanding.

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 sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: describing what it does, when to use it, and prerequisites. No redundant or vague language.

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?

Given no output schema, the description effectively outlines return values (plan, quota, requests remaining, expiry) and prerequisite (configured key). For a simple informational tool, this is complete and leaves no critical gaps.

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 zero parameters, and the description confirms 'takes no parameters'. Schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds no unnecessary param info beyond stating the absence.

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 gets details and usage for the current API key, listing specific fields: plan, quota, requests remaining, expiry. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., getCoins, getTickers) by focusing on key info rather than market data.

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?

Explicitly provides usage context: 'Use for 'what plan am I on', 'how many requests are left', 'is my API key valid''. Also notes read-only nature and prerequisite of a configured COINPAPRIKA_API_KEY, guiding appropriate invocation.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Declares read-only and no API key required. Gives clear constraints on parameter format. Could mention rate limits or error behavior, but adequate for a simple conversion 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?

Two sentences with examples, no filler. Purpose, usage guidance, and parameter nuance are front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Lacks output schema, but the conversion result is intuitive. For a simple tool, the description covers input constraints and usage adequately. Slight gap: no mention of what happens on invalid IDs (likely error), but acceptable.

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% with descriptions for all 3 parameters. Description adds value by clarifying canonical slugs and that ticker symbols are rejected, and that amount defaults to 0. Builds on schema rather than repeating it.

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?

Clearly states it converts an amount between crypto/fiat at current rate, with examples. Explicitly differentiates from sibling 'getTickersById' for plain coin prices without amount.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use (conversion with amount) and when-not-to (plain price without amount, use getTickersById). Also notes that baseCurrencyId and quoteCurrencyId require canonical slugs, not ticker symbols, and that no API key is needed.

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

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

No annotations provided, but description discloses read-only behavior, no API key required, returns ranked list with empty list meaning no match, and fuzzy search nature.

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?

Single paragraph is dense but contains all essential info without fluff; slightly improved structure could help readability, but remains efficient.

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?

No output schema, but description explains return structure (id, name, symbol, type, rank) and empty list meaning, plus no API key requirement. Fully informative for an agent.

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% but description adds extra context: lists enum values, explains query purpose, limit defaults/max, and gives usage examples, adding value beyond schema.

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 resolves fuzzy names/symbols to candidate IDs, specifies resources (coin, exchange, people, tag), provides examples, and distinguishes from siblings like getTickersById.

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?

Explicitly says 'Call FIRST when you have a bare name or symbol but need an id' and advises to pass the id to getTickersById for price, giving clear when-to-use and next-step guidance.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so description carries full burden. It states the tool is read-only and does not require an API key. It does not mention rate limits or pagination, but for a search tool this is acceptable. The description is transparent about behavioral traits.

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?

Description is three sentences with no unnecessary words. It front-loads purpose, then usage guidelines, then parameter roles. Every sentence is earned.

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?

Given 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the tool's purpose, when to use, and parameter functions. It could mention that results are JSON, but that is common knowledge. Overall adequate for agent decision-making.

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 baseline is 3. Description adds value by explaining roles: 'q is the query', 'categories filters entity types', 'limit caps results'. This provides context beyond the schema descriptions, justifying a 4.

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?

Description clearly states the tool performs a broad search across coins, exchanges, ICOs, people, and tags by name or symbol when the entity type is unknown or exploring. It distinguishes from sibling `resolveId` which is for finding coin IDs. The verb 'search' and resource 'CoinPaprika' are specific.

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?

Explicitly says when to use: when entity type is unknown or exploring, and when not to use: if a coin's canonical id is needed, prefer `resolveId`. Provides clear alternative and context.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It declares read-only, no parameters, no API key needed. Lacks mention of output format or response structure, but adequate for a status 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?

Two sentences, zero wasted words. Front-loaded key info: purpose, usage examples, exclusions, and constraints.

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?

Complete for a simple status tool. Mentions uptime, mode, enabled features as outputs. Distinguishes from sibling getGlobal. No output schema, but description compensates sufficiently.

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?

No parameters. Schema coverage 100%. Description reinforces 'takes no parameters', adding value beyond schema.

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 specific verb 'Get' and resource 'CoinPaprika MCP server's status and configuration'. It clearly states what the tool does and distinguishes it from market tools like getGlobal.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'when asked is the server up, what mode am I in, server status' and when not to: 'for market health use getGlobal'. Provides clear exclusion.

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