get_crypto_prices

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It adds the crucial detail of a $0.001 USDC cost, which is not obvious from the name. However, it does not describe the return format, pagination, or any potential rate limits, which could be relevant for an agent invoking the tool.

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 two concise sentences: one stating the function, the other stating the cost. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler or redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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 with no parameters and a simple action, the description is complete: it states what it does and the cost. No output schema exists, but the tool's simple nature and clear purpose make the return value predictable. The description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema has 100% coverage (i.e., no parameters to describe). The description mentions the specific assets, which serves as a pseudo-parameter hint, but since there are no actual parameters, the baseline of 4 applies per the rubric.

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 explicitly states the tool fetches real-time prices for a specific set of cryptocurrencies (BTC, ETH, SOL, BNB, XRP). The verb 'Get' and the resource 'crypto prices' are clearly defined, and the asset list differentiates it from sibling tools like get_funding_rates or get_volatility.

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 asset list provides clear context for when to use this tool: when real-time prices for these specific coins are needed. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the high specificity makes the usage unambiguous. The cost disclosure adds an important consideration, though no explicit 'when not to use' is stated.

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