social_get_categories

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the output nature (list with aggregate social metrics) but does not mention read-only behavior, pagination, data sources, or any limitations. This is a minimal disclosure for a potentially list-fetching tool.

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: 'Get list of coin categories with aggregate social metrics.' It is concise, contains no redundant wording, and every word contributes to meaning.

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?

This is a simple tool with no parameters and no output schema. The description conveys the basic purpose but leaves ambiguity about what constitutes 'categories', which social metrics are included, and how the returned list is structured. It is adequate for a basic list but lacks depth that would be helpful for an agent to fully understand the response.

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 has zero parameters, and the schema is complete (coverage 100%). The description adds no parameter details because none exist, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4. No additional parameter semantics are needed.

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 action ('Get list') and resource ('coin categories') with a specific modifier ('with aggregate social metrics'). It is specific enough to convey the tool's function, but it does not explicitly distinguish from similar sibling tools like 'social_get_coins_list' or 'market_coingecko_categories'.

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 implies usage when one needs coin categories accompanied by social metrics, but it offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or complementary tools. The context among many social_* and market_* list-related tools highlights the lack of differentiation.

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