social_get_coins_list

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the included metrics but does not describe the return format, pagination, sorting semantics (beyond the enum values), or what 'top coins' means. It also fails to explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or mention any rate limits.

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 sentence, concise and front-loaded with the key action and resource. It contains no filler or redundancy, making it highly readable.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the response contains and any behavioral constraints. It remains vague about 'top coins' and does not clarify the return structure or limit behavior. This is inadequate for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 schema covers all three parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value by naming metrics that map to the sort enum but does not explain desc or limit semantics beyond what the schema already provides. It does not close any gaps.

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 social metrics for multiple cryptocurrencies, naming specific metrics (Galaxy Score, AltRank, social volume). This conveys a list-oriented purpose. However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like social_get_coin_metrics, which might target a single coin. The phrase 'top coins' is slightly ambiguous but the overall action is clear.

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 alternative social analytics tools, nor are any exclusions or prerequisites mentioned. The 'multiple cryptocurrencies' phrasing offers only implicit context. Given the extensive sibling list, there is no comparison to similar tools like social_get_coin_metrics or social_get_feed.

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