coingecko_global

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by listing specific data returned (market cap, volume, dominance), but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like response size or latency. It neither contradicts nor significantly extends annotations.

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?

Single sentence conveying the core purpose and key data points without any filler. Front-loads the verb and resource. Every word contributes to understanding.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description adequately communicates what the tool returns. Could mention that the data is a point-in-time snapshot, but the essential information is present.

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?

No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds meaning by enumerating the expected output fields (market cap, volume, dominance), which is especially valuable given the absence of an output schema. This fully compensates for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 identifies the resource ('global cryptocurrency market statistics') with explicit data points (total market cap, 24h volume, BTC/ETH dominance). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like coingecko_coin (specific coin data) and coingecko_trending (trending coins).

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 retrieving global market aggregates but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., coingecko_coin for individual coins) or exclusion criteria. Usage context is clear but not formally stated.

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