get_spreads

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Calculate and return' implies a read-only computation, but there is no disclosure of authentication requirements, rate limits, whether spreads are real-time or delayed, or how concurrent requests are handled. This is thin for a zero-annotation 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?

The description is short and front-loads the purpose before the Args block. The parameter format note is useful, though the Args-style formatting is slightly verbose for a single parameter.

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. However, for a no-annotation query tool the description lacks usage routing against siblings and behavioral context like auth or rate limits, leaving meaningful gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does by specifying the exact format: a comma-separated list of token IDs. That is essential syntactic information the bare string schema does not provide.

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 ('Calculate and return') and resource ('current bid-ask spreads') with the multiplicity scope ('multiple specified tokens concurrently'), which implicitly distinguishes it from the singular sibling get_spread. It does not explicitly name the alternative, but the batch-versus-single distinction is clear enough.

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 word 'multiple' implies use when querying several tokens at once, and the sibling get_spread exists for single-token queries, but the description never states when to prefer this tool over get_spread or get_midpoints. Usage is implied rather than instructed.

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