market_coingecko_global

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. The verb 'Get' and the listed data fields indicate a read-only market metrics operation, but the description does not state source, freshness, currency denomination, or any limitations (e.g., 'CoinGecko data' or 'excludes stablecoins'). It is accurate but 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 sentence, immediately states the action and resource, and uses examples to clarify content without excessive detail. It is fully front-loaded and wastes no 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?

Since there is no output schema and no annotations, the description must explain the return value. It lists examples ('total market cap, volume, dominance') but is vague with 'etc.' and omits important context like currency, time, and source. It is minimally viable but leaves an agent uncertain about the exact shape and scope of the result.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema already exhaustively covers this aspect (100% coverage). Per baseline for zero-param tools, a 4 is warranted; the description adds contextual value by telling what data will be returned, which is more about purpose than 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 uses the actionable verb 'Get' with a specific resource—'global cryptocurrency statistics'—and lists concrete examples (total market cap, volume, dominance). This is clear, but it does not explicitly differentiate from closely related siblings like market_coingecko_global_defi or market_get_global, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 phrase 'global cryptocurrency statistics' implies when to use—when broad market-level data is needed—but there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or what alternatives exist (e.g., coin-specific or DeFi-focused tools). This is implied usage, not clear exclusions.

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