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

Goes well past the readOnly/openWorld annotations: it explains that successful rows are individually signed, that per-symbol errors occur for unavailable rows, that the specific error code TOO_MANY_SYMBOLS is returned, that the v2 block signs quality fields while batch metadata is unsigned, and that there are no automatic retries.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and the key limit, then moves to error/verification detail; nearly every clause carries operational information. It is dense with semicolons and could be split for readability, but there is no filler.

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?

An output schema exists so return shapes need no explanation, and the description still covers everything an agent needs to call correctly: plan-dependent limits, refusal code, signature scope, and verification path. Nothing material is missing.

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?

With one parameter and the schema only carrying maxItems/minItems, the description supplies the non-obvious constraint that the effective cap is plan-dependent (lower than the schema's 100) and is discoverable via get_account_status. It adds real meaning beyond the schema, though it doesn't restate the ticker format the schema already documents.

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 with batching scope ('Read signed prices for up to 100 symbols per request'), which cleanly separates it from the singular get_index_price sibling. The distinctness is reinforced by naming the batch endpoint and the per-symbol error behavior.

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?

Gives concrete routing guidance: check batchMaxSymbols via get_account_status, split the request when TOO_MANY_SYMBOLS is returned, and verify rows with verify_print. It stops short of stating explicitly when to prefer this over get_index_price for a single symbol, but the batching context makes that near-obvious.

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