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

Beyond the read-only and idempotent annotations, the description discloses the 5-minute cache, explains how the canonical wiki price is derived, defines ask/bid sides, describes ladder ordering, and specifies null behavior for change fields and sales_30d. This adds substantial behavioral context not covered by 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 first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the remaining text systematically documents return fields. It is dense but well-structured; nearly every sentence earns its place, though the long enumeration of fields is slightly heavy.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the full burden of explaining return values. It does this thoroughly, covering all named fields, units, nullability, ordering, and caching behavior, leaving no obvious gap for an agent to call and interpret the result 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?

The single itemdefid parameter is fully documented in the schema, including an example. The description does not add meaning beyond describing that the tool operates on 'one skin,' so the high schema coverage justifies the baseline score 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 opens with a precise verb-and-resource statement: live price, order book depth, extremes, and 7d/30d change for one skin. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_skin and get_skin_price_history by emphasizing live pricing and the compact '/price' card format.

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 gives clear context that this is the data equivalent of the Discord bot's /price command and notes the 5-minute cache. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over get_skin_price_history or get_skin, nor does it state exclusions.

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