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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it declares "FREE" (cost profile), lists what the response contains, and implies a read-only metadata lookup rather than an execution. It stops short of stating that the call has no side effects or any limit on how many inspections can be made, but the essentials are present.

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 waste, and the cost signal "FREE" is front-loaded so an agent reading only the first token still learns something actionable. The workflow constraint follows immediately.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (input schema, output shape, cost, rate limits). Combined with the workflow placement, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly for a one-parameter metadata tool.

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 single `id` parameter is already documented with its own example ("okx#ticker") in the schema. The description's "by id" adds nothing beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema fully documents the parameter.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (get the full contract of one tool by id) and enumerates exactly what the contract contains: input schema, output shape, cost, rate limits. This is clearly distinguishable from both finance_discover (find tools) and finance_run (execute them).

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 positions the tool in the workflow with "Call after finance_discover, before finance_run," naming both siblings and the ordering condition that selects this one. An agent needs no inference to know when to reach for it.

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