crypto_price

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the data source (CoinGecko) and data fields returned, but doesn't cover important aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or whether this is a read-only operation. The description adds some context but leaves significant gaps.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized. The first sentence clearly states the purpose and data source, followed by a parameter section that efficiently explains the aliasing relationship. No wasted words, though the parameter explanation could be slightly more 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 tool has an output schema (which presumably documents the return structure), the description appropriately focuses on purpose, source, and parameter semantics. It provides enough context for basic usage, though additional behavioral information would be helpful given the lack of annotations.

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 description provides crucial semantic information about the three parameters, explaining they are all aliases for the same CoinGecko coin ID and specifying the required format (lowercase-hyphenated). With 0% schema description coverage and no enums, this compensation is substantial, though it could be more explicit about which parameter to prefer.

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 tool retrieves cryptocurrency price, market cap, 24h volume, and 7-day sparkline data via CoinGecko. It specifies the resource (cryptocurrency data) and source (CoinGecko), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like stock_quote or economic_indicator beyond the cryptocurrency focus.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like stock_quote for stocks or economic_indicator for economic data, nor does it specify any prerequisites or constraints for cryptocurrency data retrieval.

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