get_market

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that data is live and the response includes a catalogue and market metrics, plus optional pagination. It does not mention authentication, rate limits, or what 'complete' means, but for a read-only list endpoint this is acceptable though not rich.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and key data fields, then pagination note. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

The tool is relatively simple with two optional params and no output schema. The description covers what data is returned (stablecoin catalogue with market metrics) and pagination usage. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly, though it could mention the response format slightly more explicitly.

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 describes both parameters (page, per_page) with clear meanings and defaults. The description adds only 'Supports pagination,' which slightly reinforces but does not add new meaning. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 gets a stablecoin catalogue with live market data including specific metrics (price, market cap, volume, 24h changes). This specific verb+resource distinguishes it from siblings like get_coin_history or get_trading_pairs.

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 when to use it: when you need the complete stablecoin catalogue with market data. It also notes pagination support, setting expectations for large result sets. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use it, though the scope is clear enough for most cases.

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