prediction_assets

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry the safety burden. 'Get list' clearly implies a read-only operation, so the agent can infer it is non-destructive. However, the description doesn't mention output format or whether the list is dynamic, but for a zero-parameter list tool this is a minor 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?

One sentence with the action verb front-loaded ('Get list'), no filler words. Perfectly concise.

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 trivial complexity (no params, no output schema), the description fully specifies the tool's purpose. It clarifies the scope ('for AI predictions') and resource type. No additional details needed.

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?

Tool has 0 parameters and schema coverage is 100%. With no parameters to document, the baseline score of 4 applies. The description appropriately omits parameter details.

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 ('Get') and resource ('list of supported cryptocurrencies'), and adds context ('for AI predictions') that distinguishes it from the many prediction and market tools. It clearly indicates this is a listing/utility tool, not a prediction function.

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 explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like market_get_coins or coingecko_get_coins_list. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned. The phrase 'for AI predictions' provides some implied context, but explicit guidance is absent.

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