Kripto varlıkların TL fiyatı (BtcTurk anlık)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds useful behavior: live data, BtcTurk as the single source, default asset selection, available fields, and a non-advice disclaimer. It does not mention rate limits or invalid-symbol behavior, but for a read-only data query these gaps are minor.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose and key data fields, followed by parameter guidance and a disclaimer. The bilingual repetition is mild and does not prevent an agent from quickly parsing the important 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?

For a read-only market data tool with an output schema, the description sufficiently covers source, asset universe, returned fields, symbol syntax, and default behavior. Minor omissions like explicit `limit` semantics and the optional USDT pair are inferable from the schema parameter names/enum.

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 description adds meaning beyond the schema for `varlik`, giving concrete examples like BTC, ETH and comma-separated symbols, plus the fallback default. The schema already documents `paraBirimi` and `limit` bounds, so the description does not need to repeat them.

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 resource (crypto prices from BtcTurk), a clear scope (180+ assets, TL prices, live), and enumerates the included data fields such as last trade, bid/ask, daily open, low/high, volume, and change. This makes it distinguishable from sibling tools focused on FX, stocks, or government data.

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 gives clear context: it is a live crypto price feed from a single exchange, BtcTurk, and explains default behavior when `varlik` is omitted (first 30 pairs by volume). It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives to exclude, but the intended use is evident.

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