market_coingecko_coins_list

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 discloses the return fields (id, name, symbol) and the purpose, but does not mention potential behavioral traits such as large response size, pagination, or rate limits. The read-only nature is implied but not explicitly stated.

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 sentence that is well front-loaded, with no filler. Every word adds value: the action, the object, the fields returned, and the use case.

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?

For a simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is almost complete. It states the primary output and use case. It could mention the effect of includePlatform, but that is already documented in the schema, so the overall context is adequate.

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 has 100% coverage for the single parameter includePlatform with its own description ('Include platform contract addresses'). The tool description does not add any extra meaning about the parameter, so it meets the 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get list of all supported coins' with explicit output fields (id, name, symbol) and a clear use case ('use for looking up coin IDs'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like market_coingecko_coin (single coin) and market_coingecko_search (search).

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 clearly states when to use this tool: 'use for looking up coin IDs'. This provides direct context for the agent. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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