get_crypto_news

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It makes clear that the tool fetches news from the listed sources and is read-only by implication, but it does not disclose any nuances such as whether results are sorted, how pagination works (beyond the limit parameter), or what the returned object structure looks like. It is minimally transparent but not misleading.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that immediately states the action, the resource, and the key details (seven major sources). It is concise, front-loaded, and contains 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?

The tool has a simple input schema (two optional parameters) and no output schema. The description covers what data is fetched and the source scope, but it does not describe the output format (e.g., whether it returns article titles, URLs, timestamps) or any default behavior beyond what the schema already documents. Since there is no output schema, this missing return-value information leaves a notable gap for an AI 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?

The schema fully documents both parameters (limit and source) with descriptions and valid options. The tool description adds value by listing human-readable source names that map to the schema's enum-like values, but this is not essential since the schema already enumerates them. Thus, the description provides only marginal added meaning, consistent with a 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 identifies the tool's purpose: retrieving the latest cryptocurrency news. It names the specific verb ('Get') and the resource ('latest cryptocurrency news'), and it lists the 7 exact sources, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_defi_news or get_bitcoin_news that target more specific niches.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies this is the general-purpose crypto news tool by emphasizing 'latest cryptocurrency news' from major sources, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. Given the large set of sibling news tools, an agent might need to infer which one is appropriate, but the general phrasing offers some guidance.

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