get_stork_feed_id

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it adds substantive details: the ID is derived via keccak256(assetId) and only known IDs carry a verified flag. It does not fully define behavior for unknown assets or the exact return shape, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 short sentences, front-loads the main purpose, and every sentence adds value: purpose/example, derivation method, and return flag. There is no filler or repetition.

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 simple deterministic compute tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description covers what the agent needs to invoke it: the input, the derivation, and a key return detail. It could be slightly more explicit about the response format and unknown-asset handling, but the missing information is minor at this complexity level.

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 0%, but the single assetId parameter is meaningfully explained: it is an asset identifier with the example ETHUSD and is fed into keccak256. This compensates for the schema gap for a one-parameter tool, though it stops short of listing supported asset ID values.

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 uses a specific verb ('Compute') and resource ('Stork oracle feed ID for an asset'), with a concrete example (ETHUSD). It is clear, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools such as fetch_stork_price, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 intended context is implied: use this tool when an asset's Stork feed ID is needed, as opposed to fetching price data. However, the description does not state when-not-to-use or name an alternative, leaving the vs-alternatives guidance implicit.

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