social_get_coin_metrics

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state that this is a read-only operation, whether authentication is needed, or what the response structure looks like. The mere listing of metric names does not convey behavioral traits beyond the basic retrieval action.

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 tool's purpose without fluff. The enumeration of metrics adds useful specificity despite being slightly compact.

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 tool without output schema or annotations, the description should clarify return format, time range, and whether metrics are current or historical. It lists metric names but omits these details, leaving the agent uncertain about what exactly will be returned and in what shape. Still, for a simple parameter tool, the core purpose is clear.

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 coverage is 100% with a clear example for the 'symbol' parameter. The description adds little beyond saying 'cryptocurrency' and the schema already explains the expected format. This aligns with the baseline for high schema coverage, so no additional parameter insight is required.

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 it retrieves comprehensive social metrics for a cryptocurrency, listing specific metrics like Galaxy Score, AltRank, social volume, sentiment, and engagement. This makes the core purpose understandable, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the many sibling social_* tools such as social_get_twitter_stats or social_get_market_sentiment.

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 gives a general context ('for a cryptocurrency') but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or conditions. It does not mention that more specific social tools exist for platform-specific stats, leaving the agent without guidance on tool selection.

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