get_coin

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, open-world and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it is a public endpoint and that events are source-linked, which is modest extra context, but it says nothing about response shape, freshness of the 'snapshot', or failure behavior for bad ids.

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?

One tightly written sentence with the data summary front-loaded and the id guidance second; no wasted words. It is perhaps slightly too terse given the ambiguity with get_events.

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?

Annotations cover the safety profile and there is no output schema, so the description should explain the returned content; it lists three data categories but gives no sense of ordering, volume, or what a missing coin yields. For a lookup tool with a sibling returning similar data, this leaves real gaps.

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?

With one parameter and 0% schema description coverage, the schema only supplies a regex pattern; the description adds the crucial semantics of 'canonical id' plus concrete examples (bitcoin, ethereum). That materially compensates for the missing schema documentation, though it doesn't say what happens with a non-canonical or unknown id.

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 names the resources returned (coin snapshot, source-linked events, observed reactions) but is a noun phrase with no verb, so what the tool actually does is only implied. It also doesn't distinguish itself from the sibling get_events, since it claims to return events too, leaving ambiguity about which tool to pick for event data.

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 only guidance is 'Use a canonical id such as bitcoin or ethereum', which is parameter formatting advice rather than when-to-use guidance. There is no statement of when this tool is preferred over get_events or what conditions make it appropriate.

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