fetch_stork_price

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is authenticated, returns a full signed payload, and annotates field types (e.g., uint64, int192). It implies a read-only pull and does not mention side effects, which is appropriate. It does not cover error behavior or rate limits, but that is not critical for this simple 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?

Three sentences with no fluff. The purpose is front-loaded, and each sentence adds value: purpose, return format with types, and usage guidance. Perfectly concise and well-structured.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description covers the core return information (signed payload, field types, and how to use the call data). It does not detail the full response structure or error cases, but for a straightforward price fetch it is adequate. The tool's simplicity and clear purpose make this 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?

Schema description coverage is only 33% (only baseUrl has a description). The description does not explicitly explain apiKey or assetId beyond implying them via 'authenticated' and 'for an asset'. It does not mention the default baseUrl or any parameter specifics, leaving the agent to rely on schema patterns. Given low coverage, the description should compensate but fails to do so.

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 verb ('Perform an authenticated pull') and a clear resource ('live signed price update for an asset'). It also adds unique details like returning a signed payload with Solidity type annotations, which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling info tools.

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 on when to use the tool (to get a signed price update) and even provides guidance on using the returned solidityCallData field in a downstream contract call. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it, though the purpose is distinct enough.

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