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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description only needs to add context beyond safety. It does so by stating bps units, the two output modes, and that symbol-mode returns per-US-market-session statistics. There is no contradiction with the 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?

Two sentences deliver the core metric, the data sources, and both invocation modes with no filler. The most important identity information is front-loaded.

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 read-only data tool with four optional parameters, the two modes are described accurately, and the missing output schema is mitigated by stating that symbol-mode returns history with per-session statistics. It still leaves details like interval effects and exact statistic names unspecified, but an agent can select and invoke the tool correctly based on this definition.

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 descriptions cover symbol and symbols, and the prose clarifies the no-symbol versus symbol behavior. However, hours and interval have no schema descriptions, and the prose only weakly ties 'hours' to 'history' without explaining how interval or hours affect the response, so the description does not fully compensate for the 50% coverage gap.

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 names an exact metric—'Price gap (premium in bps)'—and an exact resource: the same tokenized US stock across Robinhood Chain/EVM DEX pools and Solana xStocks pools. This specificity distinguishes it from siblings like get_tokenized_equities or get_defi_rate_spread even without naming 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?

It gives clear conditional guidance for the symbol parameter: omit it for latest premiums across all paired stocks, provide it for per-session history. However, it never names alternatives or says when this tool should be chosen over sibling tools, so the decision remains partly implied by the tool name and unique scope.

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