get_crypto

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states network dependency, confirms no local read/write, and specifies non-error behavior for empty results. These are meaningful, beyond-schema insights that help an agent anticipate side effects and edge cases.

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 well-structured. The first sentence states the core purpose and return format; the second sentence adds essential behavioral and edge-case information. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundancy or 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?

Despite having no annotations, the combination of a complete schema, an output schema (indicated by context), and a description that covers purpose, network behavior, result format, and edge cases makes this fully adequate for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. No significant gaps remain.

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%: all three parameters (query, max_results, vs_currency) have detailed, self-explanatory descriptions including defaults and examples. The tool description repeats some of this (e.g., query omitted returns top coins) but adds minimal new parameter-level semantics. 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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch live cryptocurrency market data' and then enumerates the exact fields returned (id, symbol, name, current price, market cap, 24h change). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like scrape_stock or convert_currency, which serve different financial data needs.

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 provides clear usage context: results are live, need internet access, and no local state is affected. It also explains the behavior when query is omitted (top coins) and when no matches are found (empty list, not an error). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the use case is unambiguous enough for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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