market_coingecko_companies_holdings

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and the resource is clear, but the description does not mention response format, potential rate limits, or other behavioral traits. It is not misleading, but it is minimal.

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, concise sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded. It contains zero unnecessary words and communicates the core function efficiently.

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 is simple with one parameter and no output schema, so the description is mostly adequate. However, it leaves ambiguity about whether the response covers both coins or just the selected one, and it does not specify the exact data returned (e.g., company names, amounts). This is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter coinId, including an enum (bitcoin, ethereum) and a description. The tool description adds no additional parameter information, so the baseline score for high schema coverage applies.

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 the specific verb 'Get' and a precise resource 'public companies Bitcoin or Ethereum holdings', clearly indicating the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, as no other tool references public companies' cryptocurrency holdings.

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 one needs public companies' Bitcoin or Ethereum holdings, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives or any exclusions. The usage context is inferred from the purpose rather than stated.

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