AIsa Finance

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

Adds substantial context beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/destructiveHint annotations: the call is free, it requires the Authorization header, and it discloses result semantics ('ok is true only when the balance was read; otherwise each entry of errors says what to do in next_step'). That tells an agent how to interpret partial failure, which annotations cannot convey.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what the agent gets, followed by cost/auth, then call triggers, then result interpretation. No sentence is redundant and none could be dropped without losing information.

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 zero-parameter read tool with an output schema already present, the description covers the remaining gaps: cost, auth requirement, invocation triggers, and the ok/errors/next_step contract. Nothing an agent needs to call or interpret it correctly 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the description has nothing parameter-level to compensate for, and the schema is fully covered. A 4 rather than 5 reflects that it adds no input-syntax detail, though none is possible here.

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 concrete resource set (identity/key, account balance, Go-to-Market wallet, usage over 1/7/30 days) rather than restating the name. It is clearly distinguishable from every sibling, which are all Reddit, batch, or search tools. An agent knows exactly what it will learn by calling it.

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?

Explicit triggering conditions are given: 'Call it to verify a new connection or to explain a 402.' That is a strong when-to-use statement. It stops short of 5 because it names no alternative tool or a when-not condition, though the sibling list offers no obvious competing diagnostic.

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

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description is not required to restate it. It adds genuine operational context: the batch_use prohibition, exact-name/prefix requirements, and session reuse semantics. It does not cover failure handling when names are invalid, keeping it below a 5.

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 the core action and size limit, and every sentence carries workflow value. The session_id sentence duplicates the schema's own parameter description, which is minor redundancy rather than bloat.

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 batch retrieval tool with an output schema, the description supplies the orchestration context an agent needs (source of names, next steps, session handling) without needing to explain return values. Nothing essential to correct invocation 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning beyond the schema by constraining names to those returned by search and warning against a client prefix such as mcp__aisa__, which is not encoded in 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Retrieve schemas for 1 to 20 exact tool names') and pins the source of those names to search. This clearly separates it from siblings like search (finds tools), batch_quote, and batch_use.

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?

Explicitly sequences the workflow: build arguments from successful schemas, then call batch_quote, and 'Do not call batch_use yet.' This is an explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use instruction naming the alternative siblings.

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

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

Goes well past the readOnly/idempotent annotations by explaining that quotes are price observations rather than authorization grants, and precisely delimiting what auto_execute_eligible does and does not waive (user prohibition, narrower scope, tighter budget). It also guarantees no execution fallback, which is the key behavioral risk for this tool.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and most sentences carry distinct rules (no fallback, eligibility limits, naming, session reuse). It is on the long side and the argument-shape constraint is stated twice in spirit, but little is truly wasted.

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-value documentation isn't required, yet the description still flags the two response fields that matter for a downstream decision. Combined with session and naming guidance, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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?

At 67% schema coverage the schema already documents each parameter, so the description earns credit only for added meaning: exact-name rules for 'tool', session_id reuse semantics, and the 1-to-20 argument-shape parallel with batch_use. It doesn't clarify search_id beyond what the schema states.

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 ('Obtain AIsaServices cost quotes for 1 to 20 published tools') plus the crucial scope qualifier 'without executing them.' It is immediately distinguishable from the sibling batch_use, which executes rather than quotes.

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?

Explicitly names the parallel sibling ('Same input as batch_use') and draws the boundary ('Never falls back to execution'). It also gives operational conditions: use names exactly as search returns them, strip any mcp__aisa__ prefix, and reuse session_id from Search for the task.

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

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

Annotations already cover mutability, destructiveness, and open-world behavior. The description adds critical business logic: billable calls, quote dependency, the meaning of auto_execute_eligible (waives only cost confirmation, not user prohibitions), and no silent retry. It doesn't detail rate limits or return format, but with an output schema present, that's acceptable.

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 dense and front-loads the cost warning, but it packs many separate instructions into one block, making it less scannable. Some sentences like 'A missing or failed quote is not free' add value, but the overall flow could be better structured.

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 destructive, open-world annotations and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential preconditions and behavioral constraints. It could mention error handling or partial failure behavior, but the core guidance is 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 67%, and the description adds important semantics: tool names must be exact without client prefix, session_id reuse guidance, and 1-20 call limit. It doesn't explain search_id, but the schema description for search_id is already clear enough.

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 the verb and resource: 'Execute 1 to 20 independent published-tool calls', and the title matches. It distinguishes itself from batch_quote by requiring a quote first, but doesn't explicitly contrast with the singular 'use' sibling, though that's implied by 'batch'.

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 gives explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use conditions: only after a successful batch_quote with auto_execute_eligible=true or explicit user authorization. It also states re-quote conditions and prohibits silent retries, leaving little ambiguity.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: it returns `total_filings` and `returned` so a filtered view cannot be mistaken for the whole day, it does not rank results, and it provides measured payload sizes (112 KB unfiltered, 73 KB with listed_only, ~10 KB with doc_type_code). These details go beyond generic annotations and inform the agent about response characteristics and data volume.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then elaborates with relevant details. It is longer than minimal, but every sentence earns its place: upstream comparison, field list, filtering behavior, size measurements, and return fields. The structure is logical, moving from general purpose to specifics. A slightly tighter wording could improve it, but it remains efficient.

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?

The description is thorough for an agent to invoke correctly. It explains the filtering semantics, the return fields (`filings`, `total_filings`, `returned`), the relationship to the upstream tool, and the date format. Since an output schema exists, it need not detail return structure. Nothing critical is missing; the description covers all necessary operational details.

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 0% (no descriptions in the schema), so the description must fully explain parameters. It does: `date` is YYYY-MM-DD, `listed_only=true` keeps filings with a secCode (~two thirds of a day), and `doc_type_code` matches exactly with concrete examples (120, 140, 160, 350). This gives the agent complete semantic understanding of all three parameters, far exceeding what the schema provides.

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 and resource: 'One day of Japanese EDINET filings as a scannable list, with the filtering upstream lacks.' It clearly identifies the tool's function and differentiates it from the sibling `get_edinet_documents` by highlighting the filtering capability. The mention of six fields and the explicit contrast with the upstream tool leaves no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 names the sibling `get_edinet_documents` and contrasts it: the upstream has no filter parameters and returns raw fourteen-field records, while this tool provides filtered six-field records. It also states 'It does NOT rank or select beyond your filters,' clarifying scope. However, it does not explicitly say 'use this when you need filtered results, use the upstream when you need full records,' leaving the decision slightly implicit.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and idempotency profile is fully covered. The description adds no further behavioral context — no rate limits, no auth requirements, no pagination or result-size behavior. The pricing block is billing boilerplate, not behavioral guidance.

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 core sentence is a single front-loaded clause with no wasted words. It is undercut by the injected pricing comment block, which occupies roughly half the description text and carries no value for tool selection or invocation.

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 values need not be explained, and the one parameter is fully specified. The remaining gap is disambiguation: with both 'get_coingecko_coins_categories' and 'get_coingecko_coins_categories_list' in the sibling set, the description should clarify which one includes market data.

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 100% and the single 'order' parameter is fully documented in the schema with an enum and a stated default. The description adds nothing about sorting, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.

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 and resource: 'query all the coins categories with market data (market cap, volume, ...) on CoinGecko.' That is clear enough to know what the tool returns. However, it never differentiates itself from the near-identically named sibling 'get_coingecko_coins_categories_list', so an agent cannot tell the two apart from the description alone.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the many sibling category/coins tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The only contextual cue is the parenthetical field list, which implies a richer dataset than the plain list endpoint but never says so.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond them — no note on rate limits, auth, or that this returns a full unpaginated category map. The pricing block discloses a per-request cost, which is marginally useful but boilerplate rather than tool-specific behavior.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the resource being queried, followed by a templated pricing disclosure. No wasted prose in the functional part; the pricing block is mandatory boilerplate rather than authorial bloat.

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?

With an output schema present, annotations covering the safety profile, and no parameters, the description need not explain return values. What it still lacks is the one thing structured fields cannot supply: why an agent would pick this over get_coingecko_coins_categories, making it minimally adequate rather than complete.

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 tool takes zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline of 4 applies for a parameterless endpoint.

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 and resource ('query all the coins categories on CoinGecko'), so the basic purpose is legible. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from the very similarly named sibling get_coingecko_coins_categories, and the title's 'ID Map' qualifier — the one detail that would differentiate it — never appears in the description text.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus get_coingecko_coins_categories, list_categories, or get_coingecko_coins_list. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no context — an agent must infer selection entirely from the name.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the scope of returned data and the injected pricing note ($0.008 per successful request), which is genuinely useful cost context, but it says nothing about response size, rate limits, or that booleans control payload composition.

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 core statement is one long, markdown-bolded sentence padded with 'This endpoint allows you to', and it is followed by an HTML-comment pricing block that is noise for tool selection. The purpose is front-loaded, but the prose is bloated relative to its information content.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and annotations cover the safety profile; combined with a 100%-documented schema, the agent has enough to call it correctly. The remaining gap is ambiguity about when to prefer this over the narrower coin siblings.

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 100% (9 params, all documented, including deprecation notices for community_data/developer_data and the dex_pair_format enum), so the schema carries the burden. The description's enumeration of returned data loosely maps to the boolean toggles but adds no syntax or default information 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?

States a specific verb (query) and resource (metadata + market data for a coin by coin ID), and enumerates the concrete payload (image, websites, socials, contract address, price, ATH, tickers). An agent can tell this is the broad 'everything about one coin' endpoint, but the description never contrasts it with near-overlapping siblings like get_coingecko_coins_id_tickers, get_coingecko_simple_price, or get_coingecko_coins_id_history.

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?

There is no when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, despite the sibling set containing several overlapping coin-detail endpoints (tickers, history, market_chart, ohlc). The agent must infer selection purely from the endpoint URL.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only a cost signal (the injected pricing note of $0.008 per successful request), which is genuinely useful behavioral context, but says nothing about rate limits, auth, or response shape.

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 opening sentence is front-loaded and efficient, but roughly half the text is an injected pricing boilerplate block that is unrelated to tool selection. The core content earns its place; the wrapper does not.

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 values need not be spelled out, and the description still previews the returned fields. With annotations covering safety and 100% schema coverage, the only real gap is the absence of routing guidance versus sibling historical-data tools.

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 100%, so all three parameters (id, date, localization) are already documented with defaults and formats in the schema. The description adds no extra syntax or constraint beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific verb (query) and resource (historical data for a coin by coin ID) and enumerates the returned fields (price, market cap, 24hrs volume). It is clear on its own, but it does not differentiate itself from close siblings such as get_coingecko_coins_id_market_chart_range or get_coingecko_coins_id_ohlc, which also return historical data.

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 'at a given date' implicitly distinguishes this from the range-based siblings, so the intended usage is inferable. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over market_chart_range/ohlc, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the returned field set and a per-request cost note ($0.008/request), which is genuine behavioral context an agent can act on. It says nothing about pagination, granularity defaults, or rate limits beyond price.

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 purpose is a single front-loaded sentence, followed by a compact pricing block. No wasted prose. Minus one point because the boilerplate pricing comment block is injected noise relative to the tool's actual semantics and the bold markdown is gratuitous.

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 values need not be described, and annotations cover safety. What is missing is the routing context against the many coin-chart siblings (range vs. trailing days, ohlc, history). For a 5-parameter endpoint in a dense tool family, that gap keeps it at minimum viable.

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 100% (id, days, interval, precision, vs_currency all documented with enums), so the schema carries parameter semantics. The description echoes only the coin-ID selector and returned fields, adding no syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb+resource: gets historical chart data (UNIX time, price, market cap, 24hr volume) for a coin identified by ID. An agent knows exactly what the call returns. However, it never distinguishes itself from the near-identical sibling get_coingecko_coins_id_market_chart_range, which an agent must infer differs only by date-range selection.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, no named alternatives. With siblings like market_chart_range (arbitrary date window vs. trailing 'days'), ohlc, and history, the description leaves the agent to guess which chart tool to pick. Only implied usage from the required 'days' parameter.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description usefully enumerates which market series come back (price, market cap, 24h volume), which goes beyond the annotations, but it discloses nothing about granularity defaults, rate limits, or the fact that the returned timestamp unit depends on the interval chosen.

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 core capability is front-loaded in a single sentence before the mandatory pricing block, so an agent hits the substance immediately. It is slightly padded with bolding and the trailing clause that restates what is already covered, but nothing is genuinely wasted.

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 values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. What is missing is the one thing that matters for this tool family: how it differs from the adjacent range/days variants, plus any note on interval-driven granularity or timestamp units — a notable gap for a 6-parameter time-series endpoint.

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 100% and each parameter (including the two enums) is documented in the schema itself, so the description carries no burden here. It adds no format, default, or constraint detail beyond the schema, which is exactly the baseline-3 case.

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: get historical chart data for a coin by ID, listing the exact returned series (price, market cap, 24hr volume). That is enough to distinguish it from most siblings, but it never differentiates itself from the near-identical `get_coingecko_coins_id_market_chart`, which differs only in taking a relative window rather than an explicit range.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no pointer to alternatives. The phrase 'within certain time range' implies the range-vs-days distinction, but the agent must infer that from the tool name alone and cannot tell when `get_coingecko_coins_id_market_chart` would be preferable.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context of its own beyond a pricing boilerplate block: it says nothing about granularity constraints, rate limits, or result volume, which are the traits that actually matter for this endpoint.

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 core is a single front-loaded sentence that puts the resource and key first, and the pricing block is a mandated disclosure rather than filler. The 'This endpoint allows you to...' framing is mildly wasteful but costs one clause, not a paragraph.

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 values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. What is missing is the operational constraint tying 'days' to 'interval' granularity (e.g. that hourly data is only available over short windows), which an agent needs to avoid a failed or misleading call.

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 100%, and all five parameters carry either a description or an enum, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only restates that the call is keyed on coin ID, adding no syntax or format meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific verb (get) and a precise resource (OHLC chart: Open, High, Low, Close) keyed by coin ID, so the agent knows exactly what data comes back. It does not, however, distinguish this from close siblings such as get_coingecko_coins_id_market_chart or get_coingecko_coins_id_history, leaving the agent to infer that 'OHLC' is the differentiator.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-naming guidance. An agent choosing between this, market_chart, and history gets no routing help, and there is no mention of the interval/days interaction that governs whether the call is even valid.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the CEX/DEX scope but says nothing about pagination, result volume, or rate limits beyond the generic pricing boilerplate.

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 core sentence is a single efficient statement of purpose and is front-loaded. The appended pricing boilerplate is noise for tool selection but is not authored content that dilutes the functional description.

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?

With an output schema present and 100% parameter coverage, the description needn't explain returns or params. Annotations carry the safety profile, leaving only the lack of sibling/alternative routing as a minor gap.

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 100%, so every parameter (id, page, depth, order, exchange_ids, dex_pair_format, include_exchange_logo) is already documented with enums and defaults in the schema. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb (query) and resource (coin tickers) and scopes it to both CEX and DEX for a given coin ID, which an agent can distinguish from exchange-oriented siblings. It stops short of naming the nearest alternative, get_coingecko_exchanges_id_tickers, so it does not fully self-differentiate.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of the sibling get_coingecko_exchanges_id_tickers, which retrieves tickers from the exchange side. Usage is only implied by the resource described.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that: no rate limits, caching, pagination, or size characteristics of the full coin list, and no auth requirements.

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 core sentence is short, front-loaded, and free of padding. The appended pricing blockquote is boilerplate rather than description content, but it does not obscure the purpose.

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 values need not be explained, and the 100% schema coverage handles parameters. The remaining gap is routing guidance against the large sibling set, which is not addressed.

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 100%, so both optional parameters (status filter, include_platform) are fully documented in the schema with defaults. The description adds nothing about them, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (query) plus resource (all supported coins) and names the returned fields (ID, name, symbol), which is concrete. However, it does not differentiate itself from close siblings like get_coingecko_coins_markets or get_coingecko_coins_id, so an agent must infer that this is the flat ID/name/symbol lookup rather than price or detail data.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives. With roughly 20 coingecko siblings, an agent gets no explicit routing signal for choosing this list endpoint over markets, id, or search.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that — no pagination behavior, no rate-limit or quota notes, no indication of result size or cost implications beyond the boilerplate pricing line.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence states the purpose immediately, with the pricing block appended as required boilerplate. Nothing is padded or redundant, though the sentence is arguably too sparse for a 14-parameter tool rather than truly 'concise'.

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 values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. But for a 14-parameter, highly configurable endpoint sitting among many overlapping CoinGecko siblings, the description omits any differentiation or scoping guidance an agent needs to select it correctly.

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 100%, so all 14 parameters (including enums for order, locale, precision, include_tokens) are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing parameter-specific, which matches the baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 gives a clear verb and resource: query all supported coins with price, market cap, volume and market-related data. An agent knows what it returns. However, it does not distinguish this tool from close siblings like get_coingecko_coins_list, get_coingecko_simple_price, or get_coingecko_coins_id, so the 'which one do I call' question is left open.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no stated prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives in a sibling set of 27 tools. With get_coingecko_coins_list, get_coingecko_simple_price, and get_coingecko_coins_id all plausibly overlapping, the absence of routing guidance is a real gap.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the meaningful behavioral constraint that only exchanges with active trading volumes are returned. The appended pricing block is harness metadata about billing, not tool behavior, so it earns no credit.

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 tool description itself is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the key scope qualifier is stated up front. The only bloat is the injected pricing comment block, which is not part of the authored description.

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 values need not be explained, and annotations cover safety and idempotency. What remains thin is the routing relative to the near-identically named get_coingecko_exchanges_list sibling, which is the one thing an agent is most likely to get wrong.

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 100%, with both page and per_page documented including defaults and the 1...250 valid range, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no pagination or format detail beyond that, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 (query supported exchanges) and enumerates the returned fields (ID, name, country), which implicitly separates it from the bare get_coingecko_exchanges_list sibling. However, it never names that sibling, so an agent must infer the distinction from the 'with exchanges' data' phrasing rather than being told.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternative is named. The phrase 'that have active trading volumes' hints at the result scope, but nothing tells the agent why it should pick this over get_coingecko_exchanges_list or get_coingecko_exchanges_id.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds what payload is returned and a pricing note, which is useful, but does not address pagination, rate limits, or auth, so it adds only moderate value beyond 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?

The purpose is front-loaded in a single sentence with no filler; the only additional text is the auto-inserted pricing block. The sentence is slightly run-on with the enumeration of fields, but it is not padded.

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?

With an output schema present, return-value explanation is not strictly required, and annotations cover the safety profile, so the definition is largely adequate. The notable gap is guidance on when to pick this over the sibling list/tickers endpoints.

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 100%, so the id and dex_pair_format parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description only restates that the lookup is keyed by exchange ID, adding no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 (query) and resource (exchange data: name, year established, country, volume in BTC, top 100 tickers) keyed by exchange ID. It is distinguishable from get_coingecko_exchanges (list) and get_coingecko_exchanges_list, though the mention of 'top 100 tickers' overlaps with the dedicated get_coingecko_exchanges_id_tickers sibling, creating mild ambiguity.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no routing to alternatives such as get_coingecko_exchanges or get_coingecko_exchanges_id_tickers. Usage is only implied by the 'based on exchange's ID' phrasing.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that – no pagination notes despite the 'page' param, no sort default behavior, no data-freshness or rate-limit context. The pricing boilerplate is billing metadata, not behavioral guidance.

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 core sentence is short and front-loaded, but it is padded with the 'This endpoint allows you to' frame and a multi-line pricing block that consumes most of the text without aiding tool selection. The meaningful content is a single clause.

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 values need not be explained, and annotations cover safety. But for a 7-param, paginated, sortable list endpoint the description omits pagination semantics, default sort, and when to prefer it over sibling ticker tools, leaving it only minimally adequate.

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 100%, so all seven parameters (including page, depth, order, coin_ids) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or default guidance beyond what the schema provides, which is the baseline 3 case.

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 clear verb (query) and resource (exchange's tickers) bounded by exchange ID, which distinguishes it from get_coingecko_coins_id_tickers and get_coingecko_exchanges_id. However, the 'This endpoint allows you to' wrapper is filler and the purpose is not contrasted against those siblings explicitly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling ticker/exchange endpoints (get_coingecko_exchanges_id, get_coingecko_coins_id_tickers, get_coingecko_exchanges). The only implicit signal is the 'based on exchange's ID' scoping, with no exclusions or prerequisites stated.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on result volume, pagination, caching, or that only active exchanges are returned by default. Only the injected pricing boilerplate adds any non-schema information.

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 core purpose is a single front-loaded sentence, which is good. However, the appended pricing block is multi-line boilerplate that inflates the definition without helping tool selection, and the purpose sentence contains redundant bolding markup.

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 and annotations cover the safety profile, so return values and side effects need not be explained. Still, the description omits the default status filtering behavior that shapes the output, and gives no sibling routing, leaving a modest gap for an otherwise simple lookup.

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 100%, so the single 'status' enum parameter (active/inactive, default active) is fully documented in the schema. The description contributes no additional semantics, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('query') and resource ('all the exchanges with ID and name'), and the title 'ID Map' confirms this is a lightweight identifier lookup rather than market data. However, it never distinguishes itself from siblings like get_coingecko_exchanges or get_coingecko_exchanges_id, which an agent must disambiguate among.

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?

No when-to-use context, no exclusions, and no routing to an alternative such as get_coingecko_exchanges for detailed data. The description also fails to mention the status filter (default 'active'), which materially changes the result set.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the 24-hour time window, but says nothing about rate limits, freshness guarantees, or result ordering beyond that.

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 core description is a single front-loaded sentence that states purpose and scope efficiently. The embedded pricing boilerplate adds some noise but is bounded and clearly demarcated.

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 values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. For a zero-required-parameter read tool, the description is nearly complete; only the missing alternative-tool routing keeps it from a top score.

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 100%, with show_max fully documented including its enum-like accepted values, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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: 'query trending search coins, NFTs and categories', with the temporal scope ('last 24 hours') made explicit. This is clearly distinguishable from list/market siblings by the 'trending search' framing, though it does not name any sibling to contrast against.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. An agent is left to infer that this is for surfacing currently-trending assets; alternatives like get_coingecko_coins_list, get_coingecko_coins_markets, or search are never mentioned as differentiators.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the purpose statement — no rate limits, caching, batching behavior, or auth requirements — so it contributes little beyond 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?

The core purpose is a single front-loaded sentence, which is good. However, the injected aisa-pricing boilerplate adds three lines of billing text irrelevant to tool selection or invocation, diluting an otherwise tight description.

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 values need no explanation, and the schema fully covers parameters while annotations cover safety. The remaining gap is routing guidance against the many sibling price/coin tools, which the description does not address.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 10 parameters including the enum constraints and comma-separated syntax. The description adds no syntax or semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 ('query the prices') and resource ('one or more coins') plus the three lookup keys (IDs, symbols, names), which maps cleanly to the title. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like get_coingecko_simple_token_price_id or get_coingecko_coins_markets, so an agent cannot route between them from this text alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of when a different sibling (e.g. token_price_id, markets, or coins_id_history) would be preferable. The agent is left to infer usage purely from the endpoint name.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and idempotency profile is fully covered for this no-param read. The description adds 'all supported currencies' scope, which is useful, but doesn't explain return structure beyond what annotations and output schema already provide. With annotations carrying the behavioral burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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 core description is a single efficient sentence with the resource front-loaded. It includes a pricing note that isn't strictly part of the tool semantics, adding a bit of noise, but the tool description itself is tight.

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 zero-parameter read-only list tool with an output schema and full annotations, the description covers what the tool returns ('all supported currencies'). An agent has enough to call it. It could note the list's typical use for constructing simple_price queries, but this isn't essential.

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?

Zero parameters, so baseline 4 applies. No parameter semantics needed.

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 ('query all the supported currencies on CoinGecko') with clear scope ('all'). A named endpoint resource ('supported vs currencies') that's distinguishable from sibling list tools like get_coingecko_coins_list.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives. The description doesn't explain the relationship to sibling tools like get_coingecko_simple_price or get_coingecko_coins_list, or explain what this list is used for (e.g. as valid currency codes for simple_price).

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description contributes only the pricing note (a published reference rate per successful request), which is genuine cost context not present in structured fields. It adds nothing about rate limits, batching behavior, or result shape, so a 3 is appropriate given the low bar set by rich 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?

The functional sentence is front-loaded and wastes nothing. The appended pricing block is boilerplate rather than author-chosen content, but it still adds length that dilutes the one useful sentence, keeping this just below a 5.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and rich annotations cover safety. The schema carries all parameter detail. The only real gap is the unstated boundary with the ID-based simple-price sibling, which is a minor omission for an otherwise well-specified endpoint.

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 100%, so all eight parameters — including precision enum, comma-separated multi-value handling, and the include_* flags — are documented in the schema itself. The description says 'one or more' tokens, which lightly reinforces the multi-address capability the schema already states. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource: query one or more token prices using token contract addresses. Combined with the title and the required contract_addresses parameter, an agent can tell it apart from get_coingecko_simple_price (which keys on coin IDs). It stops short of explicitly naming that sibling or stating the address-vs-ID distinction, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. Usage is only implied by the phrase 'using their token contract addresses', which suggests this is the right call when you have contract addresses rather than coin IDs. The agent must infer the boundary against get_coingecko_simple_price and get_coingecko_token_data on its own.

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

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

Annotations already declare the full safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), so the description's job is to add beyond that. It does: it enumerates the returned data categories, and it discloses a concrete cost of $0.008 per successful request, which is real behavioral context an agent can budget against. It stops short of noting rate limits or response size for a data-heavy call.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that leads with the action and follows with the returned payload; the pricing block is boilerplate but clearly delimited. The parenthetical 'etc.' lists are slightly bloated but still earn their place by conveying return scope.

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 values need not be explained, and annotations plus a 100%-covered 2-param schema leave little uncovered. The description adds the useful payload preview and cost. The remaining gap is disambiguation from the many overlapping CoinGecko siblings, which is the only material omission.

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 100% — both id (asset platform, pointing at /asset_platforms) and contract_address are documented in the schema itself. The description merely restates these inputs in prose without adding format, casing, or lookup guidance, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb (query) plus a concrete resource scope: metadata (image, websites, socials, contract address) and market data (price, ATH, tickers) keyed on asset platform + contract address. An agent can see exactly what payload this returns. It never distinguishes itself from near-neighbours like get_coingecko_coins_id or get_coingecko_simple_token_price_id, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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 'based on an asset platform and a particular token contract address' describes the input basis rather than when to reach for this tool over its 27 siblings. There is no statement of when-not-to-use or which alternative to pick when only a price or only metadata is wanted.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the returned data shape (UNIX time, price, market cap, 24hr volume) and a per-request price, but says nothing about rate limits, pagination, or historical depth limits ('max'). With annotations doing the heavy lifting, this is an adequate 3.

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 functional sentence is single and front-loaded, and the injected pricing block is clearly delimited boilerplate rather than prose. Slight bloat from the pricing/metadata block, but the core content is tight.

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?

The tool has rich annotations, full schema coverage and an output schema, so return values and safety need not be explained. The description is complete enough for correct invocation, though it omits sibling routing and any note on granularity behavior (interval vs days interaction).

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 100% and two parameters carry enums, so the schema already documents id, days, interval, precision, vs_currency and contract_address thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond echoing 'asset platform and particular token contract address'. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the work.

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 (get) and resource (historical chart data) and names the disambiguating scoping dimension: 'based on asset platform and particular token contract address'. This implicitly separates it from the coin-id based siblings, but it never names get_coingecko_coins_id_market_chart or get_coingecko_token_market_chart_range explicitly, so differentiation requires inference.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternative, despite several closely related siblings (get_coingecko_coins_id_market_chart, get_coingecko_token_market_chart_range) that an agent must choose between. The agent is left to infer the choice entirely from the resource wording.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond that — no rate limits, no note that it is a paid endpoint beyond the injected pricing block, and no granularity/auto-interval behavior. It also says the range is 'in UNIX' while the schema instructs ISO date strings for best compatibility, which adds confusion rather than clarity.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in a single dense sentence, but that sentence is over-long and contains the misleading 'in UNIX' claim. The appended pricing boilerplate consumes roughly half the text without helping an agent select or invoke the tool.

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?

With an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description need not explain return values, and the inputs are documented in the schema. What is missing is the differentiation and usage context that would let an agent choose this tool over its range/market-chart siblings.

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 100%, with defaults, enums and per-parameter docs already present, so the baseline is 3. The description only restates the high-level output dimensions (price, market cap, 24hr volume) and the platform/contract-address inputs without adding format, interval, or precision semantics 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 names a specific verb and resource ('get the historical chart data within certain time range... along with price, market cap and 24hr volume') and scopes it to a token contract address on an asset platform. It does not, however, distinguish itself from near-identical siblings such as get_coingecko_token_market_chart or get_coingecko_coins_id_market_chart_range, so the agent must guess which range/market-chart variant to call.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named, despite three closely related market-chart siblings in the list. The only usage signal is the implicit 'based on asset platform and particular token contract address', which is a scope statement, not routing guidance.

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

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real context the annotations do not: the required Subscription-Key authentication parameter, and the exact shape of the two response modes (metadata vs. metadata plus results). It stops short of describing rate limits or pagination for large filing lists.

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 a raw API spec dump wrapped in 'methods'/'requestParams' JSON scaffolding rather than prose, so nothing is front-loaded for an agent. It also carries a pricing comment block that is noise for tool selection, and repeats parameter text already in 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, yet the description spends most of its budget on response fields. With only 2 parameters and full annotation coverage, the remaining gap is the missing sibling differentiation and when-to-use guidance, leaving it minimally viable rather than complete.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both date and type verbatim, including the YYYY-MM-DD format and the 1/2 enum — the description largely restates it. The only genuinely additive item is the Subscription-Key parameter, which is absent from the input schema entirely.

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 embedded methodDesc states a specific verb and resource: 'Query the EDINET filing list for a given file date,' and the name get_edinet_documents matches that scope. It never distinguishes itself from adjacent siblings like edinet_filings_digest, get_financial_filings, or get_details, so an agent cannot route between them from this text alone.

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?

Usage is only implied through the type parameter semantics ('1 for metadata only, 2 for metadata plus filing list'), which tells the agent how to choose a response mode. There is no statement of when this tool should be chosen over the filing-oriented siblings, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured fields. The description's only added behavioral information is a per-request pricing disclosure ($0.02 USD per successful request, with settlement caveats) — genuinely beyond the annotations, but boilerplate that says nothing about return shape, data scope, or latency.

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 text is short but consists of HTML-comment-wrapped pricing boilerplate rather than tool documentation. It is under-specified rather than concise: every sentence is spent on billing metadata and none on the tool's function.

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 data-retrieval tool with three undocumented parameters, no output schema, and a dense field of similar financial siblings, the description supplies nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly. The pricing banner does not substitute for purpose, parameter, or routing information.

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% across three parameters (limit, period, ticker), none typed beyond 'string' and none described anywhere. The description must compensate and instead provides zero parameter meaning — no format for ticker, no accepted values for period, no units or default for limit.

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 never states what the tool does. The only content is an AISA pricing banner, so the agent must infer purpose entirely from the name 'get_financial_analyst_estimates' and the title 'Get Analyst Estimates'. Nothing distinguishes this from siblings like get_financial_earnings or get_financial_financial_metrics.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to any of the 27 sibling tools. With many near-synonymous financial siblings, the absence of any selection criteria leaves the agent with no basis for choosing this tool over alternatives.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the per-request cost context, which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about return format, caching, or the cik-vs-ticker preference — acceptable given the rich 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?

The single-sentence description is front-loaded and free of waste, and the pricing note is a clearly delimited injected block. Sizing is appropriate, though the minimal content borders on under-specification rather than tightness.

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 values need no explanation, and annotations carry the safety profile. However, for a two-optional-parameter lookup tool whose scope ('company facts') is undefined, the description leaves the caller without enough to choose between cik and ticker or to know what will be returned conceptually.

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 100%, so both params are already documented; baseline 3 applies. The description's 'for a ticker' hints at ticker usage but does not clarify the more important ambiguity that both cik and ticker are optional (required: []), leaving the agent unsure which identifier to supply.

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 verb and resource ('Get company facts') but 'facts' is generic and undefined, and it makes no attempt to distinguish itself from close siblings like get_financial_financials, get_financial_filings, or get_financial_financial_metrics. An agent cannot tell from the text what data class 'facts' covers versus those tools.

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?

Only 'for a ticker' is offered; there is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite, and no mention of alternatives among the many financial siblings. The agent must infer selection criteria entirely on its own.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety and idempotency profile is covered without the description. The one extra bit — 'Optional change fields are returned only when available' — is a useful, non-obvious note about variable response shape, but that is the only behavioral disclosure.

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 authored content is two tight, front-loaded sentences with no padding. The injected pricing block is boilerplate noise that dilutes the definition, but the substantive description itself is efficiently sized.

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?

With a full output schema and complete annotations, the missing piece is routing guidance among many overlapping financial siblings. Return values need not be explained, so the only real gap is when to pick this over get_financial_financials or get_financial_analyst_estimates.

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%, so the schema already fully documents ticker, limit, and cursor, including pagination and clamping behavior. The description adds nothing about parameters, which is acceptable at baseline when the schema carries the full load.

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 — 'Get the most recent earnings snapshot for a ticker' — so an agent knows it retrieves current earnings data keyed by ticker. However, it does not define what an 'earnings snapshot' contains or distinguish this tool from closely-named siblings like get_financial_financial_metrics_snapshot, get_financial_analyst_estimates, or get_financial_financials_income_statements.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives are named despite a crowded sibling set that overlaps heavily on financial fundamentals. The agent must infer selection from the name alone.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The only added behavioral content is the pricing note ($0.02 per successful request), which is genuinely useful cost context but is boilerplate rather than tool-specific behavior; nothing is said about coverage limits or what happens when all optional filters are omitted.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the pricing note is confined to a delimited block. It is terse to the point of under-specification, but nothing present is wasted.

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 and the parameters are fully documented, so the description needn't explain returns. However, with zero required parameters and many overlapping siblings, the description should at least say how to scope a request or when this differs from get_financial_filings_items.

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 100%, including pagination semantics for limit and the opaque cursor, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing beyond that, which is the baseline expectation.

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 ('Get SEC filings for a company'), so the agent knows exactly what the tool returns. It does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as get_financial_filings_items or edinet_filings_digest, which is the only gap at this level.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives despite a large sibling set covering overlapping financial data. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and schema.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that output is raw, unparsed item text and discloses a per-request price, which is useful context; it says nothing about payload size or rate limits.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states purpose immediately, followed only by a clearly delimited pricing block. Nothing in the prose is wasted, though the pricing boilerplate occupies more space than the functional description.

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 values need not be described. However, for a tool whose enum mixes 10-K and 8-K item codes and whose required fields shift by filing_type, the description omits the conditional-argument model entirely, leaving a real gap for an agent assembling a call.

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 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning — it does not explain that the enum spans two different item numbering schemes (10-K Items 1–16 vs 8-K Items 1.01+) or which fields are conditionally required.

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 ('Get the raw text Items from an SEC filing'), and the word 'raw text' signals it returns unparsed content rather than metadata. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling get_financial_filings, leaving the item-level vs filing-level distinction to be inferred.

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?

No guidance on when to use this over get_financial_filings or the other filing-related siblings, and no mention that item/quarter/accession_number must be matched to the filing_type. An agent gets no routing or prerequisite information from the description.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered externally. The description adds no further behavioral context: nothing about pagination mechanics, the UK-ticker limitation on price-based values, or how many records come back by default (the schema carries pagination, but the description does not reinforce it). The embedded pricing banner is commercial metadata rather than behavioral disclosure.

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 single descriptive sentence is front-loaded and efficient, with the metric families listed in a compact enumeration. The only bloat is the injected pricing comment block, which is boilerplate rather than substance.

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 structure need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. What is missing is the disambiguation from the snapshot and general financials siblings and any note that periods drive the result shape, which matters for a 17-parameter tool in a dense sibling family.

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 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema, including the CIK/ISIN/ticker lookup alternatives, pagination, and the LSE limitation. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specifies a concrete verb and resource ('Get financial metrics for a ticker') and enumerates the metric families returned (valuation, profitability, efficiency, liquidity, leverage, growth, per share), which tells an agent what data is inside. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from close siblings such as get_financial_financial_metrics_snapshot or get_financial_financials, so an agent cannot route between them from the description alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites (e.g., that ticker or cik must be supplied), and no mention of the snapshot variant that overlaps in name and purpose. The agent must infer applicability entirely from the name and schema.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds 'real-time' and a pricing note, which is modest extra context, but says nothing about freshness guarantees, rate limits, or which identifiers are required (it implies none, matching the empty required list).

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 substantive sentence is front-loaded and dense with the metric categories. The interleaved pricing boilerplate is not the description author's content but does pad the block slightly.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a tool surrounded by many overlapping financial siblings, the absence of any disambiguation leaves the agent to infer selection from names alone.

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 80%, so the schema already documents cik, isin, ticker, and exchange (including the UK limitation on price-based values). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('real-time financial metrics snapshot') and enumerates the metric categories returned (valuation, profitability, efficiency, liquidity, leverage, growth, per-share), so the agent knows exactly what this produces. It does not distinguish itself from the near-identical sibling get_financial_financial_metrics, which is the main gap.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the very similar siblings (get_financial_financial_metrics, get_financial_financials, the snapshot variants). No prerequisites, no exclusions, no routing guidance of any kind.

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

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the per-request pricing note, which is genuinely useful cost context, but says nothing about pagination depth or result volume beyond what the schema already documents.

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 core sentence is tight and front-loaded. The pricing block is relevant but wrapped in decorative HTML comment markers that add noise without content.

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?

With an output schema and fully documented input schema, the return shape is handled elsewhere. What remains missing is the disambiguation that matters most for a 27-sibling toolset: whether this returns all three statement types, and the effect of `period` on that. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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 100% across all 17 parameters, including enums, identifier alternatives, cursor opacity, and date-filter semantics, so the schema carries the full burden. The description adds no parameter meaning at all, making 3 the correct baseline.

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 ('Get all financial statements for a ticker'), which reads as the aggregate counterpart to the sibling balance-sheet/income-statement/cash-flow tools. However it never explicitly says it returns all statement types combined, so the distinction from get_financial_financials_balance_sheets et al. must be inferred.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative appears. Nothing tells the agent when to pick this aggregate tool over the three per-statement siblings, which is the key routing decision here.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds no behavioral context of its own — no mention of pagination (up to 10 records per page, cursor carries original filters), no history depth, only a pricing note that does not help an agent decide or invoke.

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 single substantive sentence is well front-loaded and wastes nothing. But the embedded pricing comment block is boilerplate that adds no selection or invocation value and dilutes an otherwise one-line definition.

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?

With an output schema present and 94% parameter coverage, the description needn't explain return values or field formats. The remaining shortfall is guidance on identifier selection and pagination, which is partially covered by the schema's own cursor and limit text.

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 94%, so the parameters are already well documented in the schema, and the baseline of 3 applies. The description contributes nothing beyond 'for a ticker', which actually omits the cik/isin/exchange alternatives the schema spells out.

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 ('Get balance sheets for a ticker'), which distinguishes it from the income-statement and cash-flow siblings by resource name. However, the description narrows the input to a ticker while the schema accepts cik, isin, market and exchange as alternative identifiers, so it under-describes the tool's actual access paths.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus get_financial_financials, get_financial_financials_income_statements or the search/screener siblings. Nothing explains which identifier to prefer (ticker vs cik vs isin), how to choose period, or when pagination via cursor is needed.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety and side-effect profile is fully covered. The description adds only a pricing note, which is billing context rather than invocation behavior; it does not describe return shape, pagination quirks, or data-source caveats. Minimum viable given the annotation coverage.

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 functional content is a single front-loaded sentence with zero waste. The injected pricing comment block is template overhead rather than description content, keeping it short of a 5.

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 values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The remaining gap is usage guidance for choosing among the sibling financials tools and identifier/period options, leaving the definition adequate but thin for a 17-parameter endpoint.

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 100%, so every one of the 17 parameters is already documented in the schema (including identifier alternatives, cursor opacity, and filing-date semantics). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, which is the baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource ("Get cash flow statements") and names the input ("for a ticker"), so the agent knows exactly what data is returned. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from close siblings like get_financial_financials_balance_sheets or get_financial_financials_income_statements, relying on the tool name alone for that differentiation.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of when this is preferable to get_financial_financials (the general statements tool) or to the balance-sheet/income-statement variants. Nothing tells the agent which period mode (annual/quarterly/ttm) or identifier scheme to prefer in a given situation.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description's only added behavioral fact is the $0.02 per-request cost, which is genuinely useful for an agent deciding whether to call it, but nothing about pagination limits, auth requirements, or rate behavior is disclosed.

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 functional sentence is front-loaded and wastes no words. The embedded pricing block is boilerplate rather than tool-specific guidance, but it is short and clearly demarcated.

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 18-parameter, zero-required query tool with an output schema needs at least a hint about identifier selection (ticker vs cik vs isin), pagination, and how it differs from the sibling statement endpoints. The description supplies none of that, leaving an agent to reconstruct intent from the schema alone.

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 94%, so the schema already carries the parameter burden (limit/pagination semantics, cursor opacity, date-filter ranges, market/exchange enums). The description adds no syntax or usage detail for any of the 18 parameters and slightly narrows the identifier story to tickers.

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: "Get income statements for a ticker." That is enough to separate it from the balance-sheet and cash-flow siblings at the name level. However, the "for a ticker" framing is incomplete, since the schema shows cik and isin are first-class alternatives, and no explicit contrast with get_financial_financials or the other statement tools is offered.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as get_financial_financials (broad), balance sheets, or cash flow statements. An agent must infer selection purely from the tool name.

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

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful pricing context ($0.02 per successful request), but does not disclose rate limits, authentication needs, or edge cases like what happens when no ticker is provided.

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 core description is a single efficient sentence, front-loading the purpose. The pricing block is boilerplate but standard, and does not detract significantly from conciseness.

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?

With a rich output schema and detailed annotations, the description needs only to orient the agent. However, it implies that a ticker is required ('for a ticker') when the schema marks it optional, and it omits any mention of the many available filters (name, form type, dates), which could lead to underutilization or confusion.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all 11 parameters. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, making the baseline of 3 appropriate.

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 ('Get') and resource ('insider trades') and clarifies the scope ('for a ticker by a company insider'). It distinguishes from most siblings, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from broader filings tools that might also contain insider information. Overall clear and direct.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It simply states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer context from the schema and tool name.

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

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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive query. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond annotations: page size (10 rows), ordering (newest first), rate-change timing, and the Federal Reserve midpoint convention. Pricing is also disclosed.

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 main content is front-loaded and concise: it describes the returned data shape and pagination first. The pricing notice is boilerplate but clearly separated. No sentence is wasted, though the description is not maximally tight.

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-value details need not be exhaustive, and the description usefully supplements it with row frequency, ordering, and rate-change semantics. However, it omits guidance on when to prefer this tool over the snapshot sibling, leaving a meaningful usage gap for an agent choosing between the two.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents `bank`, `cursor`, `start_date`, and `end_date`. The description adds only that data is for one central bank, which is implied by the required `bank` parameter, but does not explain any parameter syntax 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 clearly identifies the resource: daily policy rates for one central bank, one row per calendar day, newest first. It does not explicitly name the sibling `get_financial_macro_interest_rates_snapshot` as the alternative for current data, but it is clear enough to distinguish from most other tools.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, and the sibling snapshot tool is not mentioned. The description implies a historical daily-rate query but leaves the agent to infer that this tool is for historical rates rather than a current snapshot.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the row-level return shape and a pricing disclosure ($0.02 per successful request), but the return shape is largely redundant with the existing output schema, leaving the pricing note as the only substantive addition.

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 tight sentences with the core scope front-loaded ahead of the filter note. The injected pricing blockquote adds boilerplate length, but the substantive prose is efficient.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description covers resource, scope, and filter adequately; only the sibling-differentiation against the historical rates tool is left implicit.

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 100% and the single bank parameter is fully documented in the schema, including example codes and a pointer to the banks endpoint. The description only restates the optional single-bank behavior, adding no syntax or format detail 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 gives a specific resource (central bank policy rates) with an explicit scope qualifier: 'newest published' and 'one row per bank with the date it is in effect.' This implicitly separates it from the time-series sibling get_financial_macro_interest_rates, though it never names that sibling explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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 states the filter behavior ('Pass bank to get one bank only'), which is clear usage for the optional parameter. However, it never says when to prefer this snapshot over the historical get_financial_macro_interest_rates tool, leaving the key routing decision to inference.

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

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

Annotations already declare the full safe-read profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the safety bar is low. The description adds the dual-mode behavior, but says nothing about freshness/coverage window, rate limits, or result ordering; the pricing line is injected boilerplate rather than authored disclosure.

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 short sentences, capability first and operational detail second, with zero filler in the authored text. The second sentence partially restates the dual-mode idea from the first, a minor redundancy; the trailing pricing block is auto-injected and not the author's conciseness burden.

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 and the input schema fully documents all three parameters including pagination semantics, so the description need not explain returns. It still omits any hint about how far back news goes or how results are ordered, a small gap for a news tool but not one that blocks 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already carries the meaning of limit, cursor, and ticker (including "Omit for broad market news"), making 3 the correct baseline. The description's ticker guidance duplicates rather than extends the schema, adding no new syntax or constraint detail.

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 ("Get recent news articles") and immediately clarifies the two operating modes: ticker-specific news vs. broad market news. No sibling among the get_financial_* tools overlaps with news retrieval, so the agent can route to it unambiguously from the name and first sentence.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent how to select between the two modes ("Pass a ticker for company-specific news, or omit the ticker for general market news"), which is the main decision point. It stops short of naming alternatives for adjacent questions (e.g., filings or earnings coverage), so no exclusions are given.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the useful EOD/historical granularity but says nothing about pagination via cursor, default interval behavior, or what happens when no ticker is supplied.

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?

One front-loaded sentence stating the core purpose, plus a clearly delimited pricing block. Nothing is wasted, though the pricing boilerplate dominates the visible text relative to the useful content.

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?

The tool has 6 parameters, zero required, and an output schema, yet the description gives no default semantics (default interval, behavior with no ticker, cursor pagination flow). An agent cannot tell from the description how to invoke it correctly with an empty argument set.

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 83%, so the schema already documents cursor, ticker, dates, and interval, and the description adds nothing param-specific. Baseline 3 applies since the schema carries the load.

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 ('Get end-of-day (EOD) historical price data for stocks'), which is clear. However, it never names or contrasts with the obvious sibling get_financial_prices_snapshot, leaving the historical-vs-snapshot distinction to inference.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_financial_prices_snapshot or batch_quote. The word 'historical' implies usage but no explicit context or exclusions are given.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that the data is real-time and lists the returned fields, but says nothing about pricing/auth behavior beyond the injected billing note or about latency/freshness guarantees.

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 core sentence is front-loaded, tight, and waste-free, leading with the operation and then the payload. The appended pricing block is injected boilerplate rather than authored content and mildly dilutes the signal.

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 values need not be explained, and the description redundantly summarizes them anyway. However, the schema marks 'ticker' as optional (required list is empty) while the description implies a stock must be named, and no guidance resolves that ambiguity.

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 100% with a single well-documented 'ticker' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no format, exchange-suffix, or casing guidance beyond what the schema already states.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Get the real-time price snapshot for a stock') and enumerates the returned fields (current price, day change, day change percent). It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_financial_prices by emphasizing 'snapshot' and 'real-time', but does not name or contrast that sibling explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus get_financial_prices, get_financial_financial_metrics_snapshot, or the batch_quote/batch_use siblings. The word 'snapshot' hints at a lighter/faster alternative but the agent must infer that from the name alone.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior. The description adds nothing about pagination limits, result ordering, or rate/price behavior beyond a static price snippet – the one relevant line (per-request cost) is vague and unrelated to tool mechanics.

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?

It is short, but it is also front-loaded with irrelevant pricing markup rather than purpose. Conciseness without substance is under-specification, not quality.

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 15-parameter read tool with siblings like get_polymarket_markets, an output schema present, and rich filtering semantics, the description supplies zero functional context. An agent has nothing to decide selection or interpretation beyond the schema.

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 100%, and each parameter (limit, cursor, status, tickers, timestamps) is well-documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning, so baseline 3 applies.

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 contains only pricing boilerplate ('默认价格配置' / published reference price) and says nothing about what the tool does. An agent cannot tell from this text that it retrieves Kalshi markets or how it differs from get_polymarket_markets or get_kalshi_trades.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no reference to sibling tools. The pricing note provides no invocation guidance whatsoever.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description's only real behavioral content is a per-request price ($0.02 USD), which is marginally useful cost information, but it says nothing about pagination limits, result ordering, or data freshness beyond what the schema states.

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?

It is short, but every sentence is injected boilerplate rather than tool documentation, and it is front-loaded with an unrelated '默认价格配置' heading. Nothing in the text earns its place for the purpose of invoking this tool.

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?

The tool has an output schema and full annotations, which lightens the burden, but the description still omits the bare essentials: that it retrieves trade history, what a trade record contains, and how filters combine. For a six-parameter market-data query, this is completely inadequate.

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 100%, so all six parameters (limit, cursor, max_ts, min_ts, ticker, is_block_trade) are already documented with defaults and constraints. The description adds no parameter meaning whatsoever; per the rubric, full schema coverage establishes a baseline of 3.

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 never states what the tool does. It consists of the phrase '默认价格配置' (default price configuration) and a pricing boilerplate block, with no verb, no resource, and no mention of Kalshi trades or markets. The only hint of purpose comes from the tool name itself, which the description does not reinforce.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no reference to any alternative such as get_kalshi_markets or get_polymarket_activity. The text provides zero context for selecting this tool over its ten siblings.

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