market_coingecko_coin_tickers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the core action (getting tickers) without mentioning pagination, sorting, filtering options, or other behavioral traits such as orderbook depth inclusion. This is minimal guidance and does not help the agent anticipate tool behavior beyond the most basic level.

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, short sentence that is front-loaded with the essential verb and resource. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or 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?

Given the tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, a one-line description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's capabilities. It does not clarify what the returned tickers include (e.g., trust scores, volume), how pagination works, or how the optional parameters like exchangeIds or includeExchangeLogo affect the response. Compared to higher-scoring examples, this description leaves many 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 description coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a description (e.g., 'Page number', 'Include 2% orderbook depth'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, which matches the high-coverage baseline of 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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'exchange tickers for a coin', with a parenthetical clarifying 'trading pairs across exchanges'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like market_coingecko_exchange_tickers, which likely returns tickers for a specific exchange rather than for a coin.

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 usage (when you need exchange tickers for a coin) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like market_get_tickers or market_coingecko_exchange_tickers. There are no exclusions or alternative tool references, so it falls at 'implied usage' rather than clear contextual guidance.

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