get_coin_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It comprehensively details the return object fields and notes coin_id validation via regex. Though it does not explicitly state read-only nature, the return-focused description implies no side effects. The level of detail is high, but a slight omission of safety traits like 'does not modify data' prevents a 5.

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 well-structured with clear sections: purpose, usage guidelines, parameter details, return description, validation note. It is slightly long but each part adds value. Could be tightened by merging the initial purpose with the usage context, but current structure aids readability.

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 has 6 parameters, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is quite complete. It explains all parameters, defines when to use alternatives, and outlines return fields. Lacks mention of rate limits or pagination, but those may be less critical for a single-entity retrieval tool. The validation note adds extra completeness.

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 0%, meaning no descriptions in the schema itself. The description compensates fully by explaining each parameter: format example for coin_id, purpose of localization ('Usually false to keep responses small'), tickers warning ('large'), and scope of market_data, community_data, developer_data. This adds substantial meaning beyond the schema's bare names and defaults.

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 starts with 'Get rich metadata for a single coin: description, links, scores, market data, dev/community stats,' which clearly identifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('rich metadata for a single coin'), and lists specific data categories. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like get_price and get_coin_tickers, making purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'when the user wants to learn about a coin... or when you need scores like CoinGecko rank, sentiment up/down vote percentages, or developer activity.' Provides clear exclusion: 'For just the price, use get_price (much cheaper)' and for tickers: 'Use get_coin_tickers instead.' This offers concrete alternatives.

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