crypto_prices

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about the data source (CoinGecko) and caching (60s cache), indicating data may not be real-time. However, it does not mention rate limits, error handling, or unsupported symbols, which are relevant for a production tool.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The key information (purpose, return format, data source, cache) is front-loaded and directly stated. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core behavior: what it fetches, returns, and a notable caching detail. It does not specify the response structure (e.g., map vs. list), but given the low complexity and schema coverage, it is sufficiently complete.

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% with a clear description of the 'symbols' parameter. The description adds examples ('BTC', 'ETH', 'SOL') but these are also present in the schema. No additional semantic meaning is provided beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('live USD prices for crypto tokens') with concrete examples (BTC, ETH, SOL, USDC). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like market_sentiment and funding_rate, which address different data domains.

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 implies usage for obtaining current crypto prices in USD but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions or preferred contexts, leaving the agent to infer applicability.

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