get_coin_metadata

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, describe the return format, or mention potential behaviors like returning null for unknown tickers. The description lists content fields but adds little beyond what is already obvious from the tool name.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and object ('Get detailed metadata'), then efficiently enumerates the categories of data included. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or fluff.

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 simple, single-parameter read tool with no output schema, this description is fairly complete. It clearly explains what the tool returns (metadata fields) and implies the input requirement. While it could mention that the ticker should match ones from search_coins or discuss error handling, the low complexity and straightforward nature make the current description sufficient.

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 input schema fully documents the 'ticker' parameter with an example and case-insensitivity note (100% schema coverage). The description does not add any parameter semantics beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate. It correctly implies the ticker is required and identifies the target coin.

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's function with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed metadata for a specific stablecoin'). It enumerates the types of metadata included (description, blockchains, platforms, regulatory info, issuer details, social links), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_market or get_coin_history that focus on market data or historical data respectively.

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 you need metadata for a known stablecoin ('for a specific stablecoin' suggests you must provide a ticker). However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like search_coins, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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