check_price_freshness

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses two behavioral traits: the L2 sequencer-uptime caveat and equity feed staleness expectation. This adds context but does not fully detail behavior (e.g., return values for fresh vs. stale, error cases).

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 two sentences, concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence adds valuable context without excess. Minor possible improvement: rephrase equity note to avoid ambiguous phrasing.

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 tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers key checks and a caveat, but omits return value format, error handling, or what constitutes 'safe'. This leaves some gaps for an agent to infer.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It only hints at 'age' as a factor but does not explain the 'feed' parameter (which feed?) or the 'maxAgeSeconds' parameter's purpose/default. This leaves parameter meaning largely unclear.

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's purpose: 'Assess whether a feed's price is safe to use', specifying key factors (age, round completeness, sequencer-uptime caveat). It distinguishes from sibling price tools (e.g., read_price_feed, get_token_price) by focusing on freshness rather than price retrieval.

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 context on when to use (to check price safety) and a specific note about equity feeds being stale outside market hours. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or alternatives, leaving usage determination somewhat implied.

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