ccxt_public_call

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds that the call is public and can target implicit methods, but it doesn't describe return format, error behavior, or exchange-specific nuances. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, with the first stating the core action and the second adding a targeted usage tip. No filler or redundancy.

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?

As a generic invocation tool with no output schema and 8 parameters, the description is minimal. It directs users to ccxt_describe_exchange for niche methods but doesn't mention return values, failure modes, or the relationship to specialized market data tools; annotations mitigate safety but not retrieval semantics.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, so the description doesn't need to restate them. The only added semantic clarification is 'unified or implicit' methods, which is also already present in the method parameter description.

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 'invoke' and identifies the resource: public CCXT unified or implicit methods on a selected exchange. It clearly distinguishes from siblings by explicitly limiting to public methods, with private counterparts present as sibling 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?

It gives explicit guidance to call ccxt_describe_exchange first for capability discovery on niche methods, naming the relevant sibling tool. However, it doesn't broadly contrast this with the many specialized market_get_* tools or state exclusions for when not to use it.

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