market_coingecko_exchange_tickers

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 only says 'Get all trading pairs/tickers' but doesn't disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, data format, or whether this is a read-only operation. There is no mention of what fields are returned or any caveats about data freshness. This is minimal for a tool with no annotation support.

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 that clearly states the tool's core function. No fluff. It could be slightly more informative but for its length it's efficient. Doesn't waste words.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description is a single sentence and does not explain return structure, pagination nuances, or edge cases (e.g., what happens when an exchange has no tickers). The sibling context shows many similar market tools, but this description doesn't help the agent choose it over alternatives. Given the complexity and lack of structured support, the description is 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 description coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a basic description. The tool description adds no extra semantics beyond 'Get all trading pairs/tickers for an exchange'. Parameters like 'depth', 'order', and 'coinIds' have reasonable schema descriptions, but the description doesn't clarify how they interact or provide examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema covers the parameters.

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 'Get all trading pairs/tickers for an exchange' clearly states the verb (Get), the resource (trading pairs/tickers), and the scope (for an exchange). It distinguishes from siblings like market_get_tickers and market_coingecko_exchange by specifying exchange-specific tickers, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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: use this when you need all trading pairs/tickers for a specific exchange. It doesn't provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or name alternate tools. Given the large sibling list, more explicit guidance would be helpful, but the purpose is clear enough to infer basic usage.

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