coingecko_get_coin_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. The verb 'look up' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't disclose response format, default behavior of the optional flags, rate limits, or any potential side effects. It adds no additional behavioral context beyond what the verb suggests, so the agent is left guessing about the output structure and what data is returned when flags are absent.

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 concise sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides a necessary prerequisite. No unnecessary words or repetition of schema details. It is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description only covers the primary use case (contract addresses/chains) and never mentions the optional flags that substantially shape the response. An agent might not know whether all data is returned by default or whether flags are needed to include additional data. The workflow hint is good, but the lack of detail about the response and optional data makes the description incomplete for a tool of this complexity.

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 clear descriptions for each parameter, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds value by instructing to use coingecko_search to obtain the id, which directly informs how to fill the required parameter. This extra context for the id parameter goes beyond the schema and is genuinely useful for correct invocation.

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 verb 'look up' and resource 'contract addresses and chain information for a token using its CoinGecko ID'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like coingecko_get_prices by focusing on contract addresses and chain info, and also implicitly differentiates from market_coingecko_contract which works by contract address. However, it undersells the broader capabilities implied by the optional boolean parameters (tickers, marketData, etc.), making the primary purpose clear but incomplete.

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 'Use coingecko_search first to find the correct CoinGecko ID before using this tool', providing a clear prerequisite and workflow. It also names the specific sibling tool to use first. However, it doesn't discuss when to prefer this over other coin-info tools like market_coingecko_contract or market_get_coin_by_id, leaving some ambiguity about alternatives.

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