predict_multi_asset

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 discloses cost and bulk discount behavior, which is meaningful for an AI agent deciding whether to call the tool. However, it omits other important behavioral traits such as output structure, error handling, or rate limits, so transparency is only partial.

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 extremely concise, two sentences, with the action verb front-loaded. Every word earns its place: it states what it does, the cost, and the discount. No filler or redundant information.

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 only 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description adequately explains the purpose and cost, but does not describe what the prediction result includes, how it is structured, or any caveats. Given the absence of an output schema, a bit more context about return values would be beneficial for the agent.

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 already covers all parameters with clear descriptions, and the schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds only the cost-per-asset note, which slightly enriches the meaning of the 'assets' parameter but does not significantly expand beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb-resource pair: 'Get AI predictions for multiple cryptocurrencies at once.' It clearly states the scope (multiple assets, at once), which distinguishes it from single-asset prediction siblings like predict_crypto_price. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 hints at when to use the tool via cost information: '$0.01 per asset' and 'Bulk discount applied automatically' suggest it is beneficial for batch predictions. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or list exclusions, leaving the guidance implied rather than direct.

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