market_get_coins

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. It enumerates the data fields returned, which is helpful, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, default limits, sorting/filtering semantics, or the fact that it is a read-only operation. Given the lack of annotations, this is a significant gap.

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, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and resource, followed by a concise list of data categories. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the complexity of 15 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It lists some output fields but does not explain the filtering capabilities, pagination, sorting, or the overall return structure. The description would need to mention these aspects to be considered adequate for such a multifaceted tool.

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 descriptions for all 15 parameters, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already states; it merely lists output fields. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 comprehensive data about cryptocurrencies and lists specific data types (price, market cap, volume, price changes, supply, trading metrics, social links). The verb 'Get' and resource 'cryptocurrencies' are specific, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like market_get_coin_by_id or market_get_tickers.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any exclusions, alternative tools, or specific use cases beyond a general 'get data' statement. The schema suggests filtering and pagination, but the description offers no contextual guidance on when this tool is appropriate.

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