coingecko_get_prices

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the requirement for valid CoinGecko IDs and the search prerequisite. It does not disclose the response structure, handling of invalid IDs, rate limits, or how optional include parameters affect the output. This is a significant gap for a tool with 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and contains no waste. Every word earns its place: it states the action, the resource, and the key prerequisite.

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 and no annotations, the description should clarify the return format and behavior. It only says 'get current prices' without explaining the mapping of IDs to currencies, error handling, or how the optional include flags alter the response. The schema covers parameter details, but the tool's output and edge-case behavior are under-specified.

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 adds meaningful context for the 'ids' parameter by instructing to use coingecko_search first, which goes beyond the schema's simple 'Array of CoinGecko token IDs'. It does not add detail for other parameters, but the extra guidance for the most critical parameter 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's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Get current prices of tokens using their CoinGecko IDs.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like coingecko_search by referencing the prerequisite of using search first, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other price-related tools like market_coingecko_simple_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 provides a clear usage prerequisite: 'Must provide valid CoinGecko IDs (use coingecko_search to find IDs first).' However, it does not mention alternatives, when not to use this tool, or any exclusions. The guidance implies the workflow of searching first but lacks comparative usage direction.

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