market_get_ticker

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: the tool is deprecated, real-time, Binance-specific, and lists the exact return fields. It does not cover rate limits or error behavior, but the deprecation warning is valuable 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?

Three concise sentences, each earning its place: deprecation warning, core action, and return summary. No fluff, front-loaded with the most important selection criterion (deprecation).

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully covers the purpose, scope, and return contents. The deprecation guidance completes the picture for an agent deciding whether/where to use it. No additional context appears necessary.

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%: the one parameter 'symbol' is fully described in the schema with examples. The tool description does not add further parameter meaning beyond 'specified symbol', 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 clearly states the tool fetches real-time 24-hour ticker statistics for a trading pair from Binance, with a specific verb 'Fetch' and resource 'ticker statistics'. It distinguishes from sibling market tools (klines, order book, etc.) by specifying its exact scope and return fields. The deprecation notice does not obscure the purpose.

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 instructs to prefer ccxt_public_call and ccxt_describe_exchange for new integrations, providing clear when-to-use versus when-to-avoid guidance. This is strong alternative naming and exclusionary context.

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