blockrun_price

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. It adds valuable context about pricing and the 501 gateway error for certain markets, which is a behavioral trait beyond the annotations. However, it could mention what the response format looks like (e.g., exact price data returned), so it doesn't fully cover the agent's behavioral expectations.

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 well-structured with clear sections for actions, pricing, markets, and examples. It uses bullet points and a simple format that is easy to scan. Slightly verbose with the pricing details, but all of it is relevant to avoid unnecessary calls. The examples at the end are a nice touch but could be trimmed if needed.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (11 params, 5 enums, multiple actions), the description covers the essential usage patterns and limitations. It lacks an output schema, but the description's examples imply the return types. It could be more complete by specifying response formats for each action, but it's sufficient for an agent to make correct calls.

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 coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented with their types and descriptions. The description adds extra context by explaining how parameters relate to actions (e.g., 'symbol' required for price/history, 'market' required for stocks category) and provides example values like 'BTC-USD' and 'EUR-USD', which enhances the agent's understanding beyond the bare schema.

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 provides realtime quotes and OHLC history for crypto, FX, and commodities, plus ticker catalogs. It explicitly outlines three distinct actions (price, history, list) with examples, effectively distinguishing it from siblings like blockrun_markets and blockrun_dex. While it doesn't explicitly name siblings, the resource and action specificity make its purpose unambiguous.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use each action and which categories are supportedcli. It clearly states that stocks/usstock price/history are not served, advising the agent not to retry. It also gives concrete examples of how to structure requests, making usage conditions highly explicit.

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