list_halal_coins

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It signals a curated 'verified' dataset but says nothing about ordering, pagination, whether the list is exhaustive, or what happens when a category matches nothing.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the verb, resource, and filter dimension all appear in order of importance.

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 two-optional-parameter read-only list tool this is minimally adequate, but with no annotations and no output schema the description should at least characterize the returned collection (ordering, default limit behavior) to be self-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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are documented structurally and the baseline is 3. The description does add genuinely useful example category values ('Layer 1', 'Store of Value', 'Infrastructure') that the schema lacks, but says nothing about the limit parameter's semantics or default.

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 gives a specific verb ('List') and resource ('verified Halal cryptocurrencies') plus the filter dimension, so the operation is immediately clear. It does not, however, name or contrast itself with the siblings (get_halal_index_summary, check_shariah_compliance), leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as check_shariah_compliance for single-asset lookups. Usage is only weakly implied by the word 'filtered'.

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