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

Annotations already supply readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful resolution behavior: exact symbols win and ambiguous assets are never guessed, which is not present in 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 tightly constructed sentences deliver the core purpose, the resolution rule, and the guarantee about ambiguous assets. There is no filler or redundant restating of the schema.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema and annotations covering read-only/idempotent behavior, the description is largely complete. It could be more explicit about what happens when an ambiguous asset is encountered, e.g., whether an error is returned or disambiguation is required, but the 'never guessed' statement provides a practical boundary.

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?

The schema already documents market and precision, with the market description itself mentioning exact symbols like GRAM-USDT or base assets like GRAM. The description reinforces the market resolution policy but adds no detail about the depth or precision parameters, so it does not substantially increase semantic coverage beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Resolve'), a resource ('an exact symbol or base asset'), and a clear deliverable: market rules, ticker, best bid/ask, recent trades, and fees in one read-only call. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by framing this as a composite snapshot rather than a single-purpose endpoint.

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 phrase 'in one read-only call' clearly communicates when this tool is appropriate: when a consolidated snapshot is needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives like xrocket_market_tickers or xrocket_market_orderbook, but the aggregation framing gives enough context for routing.

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