get_freshness

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by specifying that the tool shows last update time and current lag for each data type. The annotations already indicate readonly and idempotent behavior, and the description does not contradict them. No side effects or error conditions are mentioned, but the core behavior is clear.

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 exceptionally concise at two sentences, with the purpose front-loaded in the first sentence and detail in the second. There is no redundant or unnecessary 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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. It adequately describes the input and high-level output. However, it could be more complete by explicitly situating this tool among the many freshness variants (e.g., noting it is for the standard market).

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 only parameter, 'coin', is fully described in the input schema with examples. The tool description does not add any further semantics about the parameter, so it meets the baseline expectation given 100% schema coverage. No additional parameter context is 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: getting data freshness for a coin across multiple data types. It lists the data types and explains what the output shows. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this base freshness tool from its many variants (e.g., get_hip3_freshness, get_spot_freshness) based on market context.

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 is provided on when to use this tool instead of similar sibling tools. The description does not mention any prerequisites, when to prefer this over market-specific freshness tools, or any limitations. The openWorldHint is set but not explained.

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