crypto_price

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns by stating data retrieval. The description adds valuable detail about the scope of data (1h/24h/7d changes, ATH, supply, rank) beyond the annotation. No side effects or authorization needs are mentioned, but the tool is straightforward read-only, so this is acceptable.

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?

Three sentences: first defines purpose, second enumerates returns, third gives critical usage tip (ID format and search tool). Every sentence serves a distinct function with no redundancy. Front-loaded with the main verb-resource pair, making it easy to parse quickly.

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, presence of an output schema, and annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, what data it returns, how to specify the coin, and a pointer to a sibling tool for ID lookup. No critical gaps remain for an agent to decide when and how to use this 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, and both parameters (coin and currency) are well-described in the schema. The description briefly reiterates the coin parameter's usage with the 'bitcoin' example, adding no significant new meaning. The currency parameter is not emphasized, but schema handles it. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description does not compensate beyond schema.

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: retrieving current price, market cap, volume, and price changes for a cryptocurrency. It lists specific return fields (1h/24h/7d changes, ATH, supply, rank), making the purpose distinct from sibling tools like crypto_search (which finds IDs) or crypto_trending (which lists trending coins).

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 explicitly directs the agent to use 'search_crypto' for finding coin IDs, implying that this tool is for retrieving price data once the ID is known. It also advises using the CoinGecko ID (e.g., 'bitcoin') rather than ticker symbols, providing clear usage context. While it does not list all sibling alternatives, this guidance effectively distinguishes usage from the most related tool.

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