search

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It details return structure (arrays for coins, exchanges, categories, nfts) and purpose. However, it omits information about rate limits, authentication, or any side effects. Since it's a search tool, likely read-only, but additional behavioral notes would be beneficial.

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?

Description is concise and well-structured: a brief purpose statement, explicit usage guidance, then structured Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

Despite no output schema, description fully explains return structure with example fields. Covers all necessary aspects for a search tool: what it searches, how to use, and expected output, making it complete for its complexity.

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?

Single parameter 'query' has no description in input schema. Description adds examples ('btc', 'uniswap', 'bored ape') and clarifies it's a free-text query, greatly enhancing schema's minimal info.

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?

Description clearly states verb (search/resolve) and resource (names/symbols to IDs across coins, exchanges, categories, NFTs). Distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing it's the first step when ID is unknown.

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 tells when to use: 'ALWAYS use this first when the user mentions a coin/exchange/NFT by name or ticker symbol and you don't already know the canonical CoinGecko ID.' Also notes that most other tools require IDs, providing clear context for alternative tools.

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