get_exchange_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that exchange_id is validated against a regex pattern and describes the returned object fields (name, year_established, country, description, url, image, trust score, volume metrics, tickers array). This is comprehensive, though it does not mention rate limits or authentication.

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 very concise, with a clear one-sentence summary followed by structured Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 simplicity (1 param, no output schema), the description fully covers purpose, parameter semantics, and return values. It is complete enough for an agent to use the tool correctly without additional information.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description fully explains the exchange_id parameter: its meaning (CoinGecko exchange ID), examples (binance, gdax, kraken), how to discover valid IDs (list_exchanges_directory), and a note about differing IDs. It also provides a validation regex. This adds immense value beyond the 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 'Get detailed info on a single exchange (CoinGecko directory): description, links, volume, top tickers.' It specifies the action (get detailed info), the resource (single exchange), and the source (CoinGecko directory). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_exchange_markets and list_exchanges_directory.

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 tells the agent how to find the exchange_id: 'See list_exchanges_directory to discover IDs.' It also warns about CoinGecko IDs differing from CCXT IDs. This provides clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternative tools.

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