get_tick_size

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. 'Retrieve' implies a non-destructive read, which is the key behavioral signal for an agent, but there is no mention of auth requirements, caching, or whether the value is static per market. For a simple tolerant getter this is minimal but adequate.

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?

Front-loaded single sentence stating purpose, followed by a short Args block that adds the only semantic detail present. No filler, though the Args restatement of an already-named parameter is slightly redundant.

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, and the single parameter is described. However, with no annotations and no usage context, the agent gets purpose and parameter meaning but nothing about when to reach for this tool over the many sibling price getters.

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 partially by explaining that token_id is 'the fundamental token identifier indicating the outcome side.' It adds meaning beyond the bare 'Token Id' title, but gives no format/example and only covers the single parameter.

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?

States a specific verb 'Retrieve' and precisely names the resource: the minimum allowable price increment (tick size) for a token's market. This is distinguishable from siblings like get_midpoint and get_spread, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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 description only says what the tool returns; it gives no when-to-use context, no prerequisites (e.g., a valid market/token must exist), and no indication of when another price tool would be preferred. The 'for trading a specific token's market' phrase is scope, not guidance.

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