get_item_prices

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It explains the coin conversion and the meaning of the output fields (buys.unit_price, sells.unit_price). However, it does not mention rate limits, authentication needs, or error behavior, which are common considerations for a live data fetch.

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 three sentences long, with the purpose stated in the first sentence. Every sentence adds essential information: function, currency conversion, and output field meaning. There is no superfluous text.

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?

The tool has only one parameter, and an output schema exists, so the description need not detail return values. It covers the core aspects: purpose, price units, and the key parts of the response. It lacks mention of error handling or data freshness, but for a simple fetch tool, this is acceptable.

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 input schema has 0% coverage for parameter descriptions, so the description must compensate. It only refers to 'item id' without explaining where to find it or any constraints. This adds minimal value beyond the schema structure, leaving the agent underinformed about the parameter's semantics.

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 'Fetch live Trading Post buy/sell prices for an item id,' which clearly identifies the action (fetch), the resource (Trading Post prices), and the scope (for an item). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_item (item details) or wiki_search (wiki content).

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 implicitly clarifies usage by specifying the tool's domain (Trading Post prices) and output format, which helps an agent decide when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though the sibling list provides context.

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