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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses cross-checking across five venues, median calculation, the two-source minimum, divergence flagging, signed vs unsigned attestations, rate limiting, and payment-header requirements.

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 long but information-dense and mostly front-loaded with purpose and behavior. Some phrases are slightly redundant ('Is this price correct?' plus the following confirm statement, and 'Same price on either transport'), but the length is justified by the payment and transport details.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description is remarkably complete: it covers use case, accepted symbols, source behavior, failure thresholds, rate limits, and payment upgrades. It does not describe the exact attestation response shape or error behavior when fewer than two sources are live, but this does not prevent correct invocation.

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% and the schema already describes 'symbol' with examples. The description adds that USD/USDT-quoted symbols are accepted, which is helpful, but it does not clarify the exact format for quoted symbols or how they differ from bare tickers like BTC.

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 opens with a direct question and then states the precise function: 'Confirm a crypto asset's spot price before your agent trades, quotes, or settles on it.' It names the resource (spot price) and clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like verify_business and verify_claim by focusing on price verification.

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?

It gives clear context for when to use the tool ('before your agent trades, quotes, or settles') and explains the payment/transport options. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative verify_* tools, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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