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

Annotations already declare a safe read-only operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by disclosing that it aggregates data from independent sources (CoinGecko, Coinbase, Kraken) and returns an attested consensus price with an agreement score. However, it does not describe what happens if sources disagree or other edge-case behaviors.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and immediately followed by the return value. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description provides the core purpose and return type, but omits details about parameter meanings and consensus failure behavior. It is adequate for a simple read operation but has clear gaps.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the meanings of symbol, fiat, or tolerance_pct. It only loosely implies that 'crypto asset price' relates to these parameters, leaving the tolerance_pct semantics particularly unclear. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Verify current crypto asset price' with a distinctive method (multi-source consensus). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_resolve_price_threshold and get_stratalize_overview by emphasizing verification and consensus rather than threshold resolution or overview.

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 when to use the tool (when you need to verify a current price via consensus) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. No reference is made to sibling tools or when not to use this tool, so usage guidance is only implicit.

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