get_crypto_price

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: real-time data retrieval, specific return fields (price, market cap, volume, changes), and a cost mechanism. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits, error handling, or data freshness, which could be important for an agent's decision-making.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently lists return data and cost in two sentences. It avoids unnecessary details, but could be slightly more structured by separating the cost note into its own sentence for clarity. Overall, it's concise with minimal waste.

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's moderate complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It covers purpose, returns, and cost, but lacks details on error cases, data sources, or example outputs. Without annotations or output schema, more behavioral context would improve completeness for agent use.

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 has 100% description coverage, with the 'symbol' parameter well-documented. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only implying the parameter is used to specify the token. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 purpose: 'Get real-time cryptocurrency price data for any token' with specific examples (Bitcoin, Ethereum). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_ohlcv' (which likely provides historical OHLCV data) and 'token_analysis' (which likely provides deeper analysis). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_trending' or 'whale_alerts', which might also involve price data, keeping it from a perfect 5.

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 for real-time price data retrieval, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_ohlcv' for historical data or 'token_analysis' for deeper insights. It mentions a cost ('$0.005 USDC via x402'), which provides some context but doesn't specify when this tool is preferred over other pricing or analysis tools in the sibling list.

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