get-ticker-markets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions retrieving a list but doesn't cover key aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output format looks like (e.g., pagination details beyond the schema). This is a significant gap for a tool with 7 parameters and no output schema.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context (e.g., safety, output format), usage guidance relative to siblings, and doesn't compensate for the absence of structured output information, leaving the agent under-informed.

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%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying filtering by cryptocurrency and exchanges, which is partially covered by parameters like 'fromCoin', 'toCoin', and 'exchange'. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('list of tickers for a specific cryptocurrency across different exchanges'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-ticker-exchanges' or 'get-coin-exchange-price', which might have overlapping functionality, so it misses the highest score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools in the server (e.g., 'get-ticker-exchanges', 'get-coin-exchange-price'), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on the name alone.

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