market_get_coin_by_id

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get detailed information' without revealing what data is included, whether the operation is read-only, or any rate/error considerations. The vagueness of 'detailed information' leaves the agent uncertain about the return payload.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It is concise and easy to parse.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is minimally viable. However, it lacks any mention of what 'detailed information' includes or how the currency parameter affects the result, and with many market_get_* siblings, slightly more context would improve completeness. Still, it is adequate for a straightforward fetch-by-id operation.

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% for both parameters, so the schema already documents coinId and currency. The description's phrase 'by its unique identifier' adds a slight connection to coinId but does not provide additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, matching the baseline expectation.

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 tool retrieves detailed information about a specific cryptocurrency using its unique identifier. This distinguishes it from list-type tools like market_get_coins and other market_get_* siblings by specifying the singular, id-based lookup.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies the need for a coin identifier from get_coins but does not mention exclusions or compare to similar tools like market_get_coin_chart or market_get_coin_avg_price, leaving the selection decision largely to the agent.

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