get_indy_price

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 only specifies 'current' (implying real-time data), but fails to disclose if the operation is read-only, if it requires authentication, rate limits, or the return data structure.

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 with no redundant words. Every term ('current', 'INDY token', 'ADA and USD') contributes essential information about the tool's function.

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 zero-parameter tool of low complexity, the description adequately conveys the core functionality. While an output schema would improve completeness, the description is sufficient for an agent to understand what data (INDY price in two currencies) will be returned.

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 contains zero parameters. According to the rubric, zero parameters establishes a baseline score of 4, as there are no parameter semantics to clarify beyond what the schema (empty object) already indicates.

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 explicitly states the action ('Get'), resource ('INDY token price'), and scope ('in ADA and USD'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'get_asset_price' or 'get_ada_price' by specifying the INDY token specifically.

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?

While the specific naming implies usage (when you need INDY specifically), the description lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus the generic 'get_asset_price' sibling or what prerequisites might exist for accessing this data.

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