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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the output (numeric price in USD), null-safe behavior (returns null with note if not found), and the dual-dex structure (crypto vs equity). It adds context beyond a minimal description, though lacks details like rate limits or authentication.

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 concise (3-4 sentences) with clear front-loading of the core action. Every sentence adds value: purpose, supported assets, return type, null safety. No fluff or repetition.

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 simple price tool with no output schema, the description covers return value, error handling (null safety), and both use cases (crypto and equity). It is self-contained and sufficient for 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%, baseline 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the market parameter's purpose (crypto vs equity dex) and giving concrete symbol examples (BTC, ETH, SMSN, NVDA). This goes beyond the 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 uses a specific verb+resource ("Get the LIVE mid price") and clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings. It lists supported assets (crypto majors and equities) and explicitly states it answers quote requests like 'what's X trading at?'.

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 provides clear usage context by specifying the types of questions it answers (quote requests). It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools, but the context is strong enough to guide correct invocation.

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