get_fiat_reference_price

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

No annotations provided. The description only states it's a 'get' operation, failing to disclose any behavioral traits such as idempotency, rate limits, or side effects. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does not add value.

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 extremely brief but underspecified. It lacks essential information like return format or examples, making it insufficient rather than concise.

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?

With no output schema, the description should explain what the fiat reference price is and what the agent can expect as a return value. It fails to provide this context, leaving the tool's purpose ambiguous.

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 sole parameter 'symbol' is described as 'Trading pair symbol', which merely reiterates the schema title. With 0% schema coverage, the description adds no semantic value beyond what the schema already provides.

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 action (get) and resource (fiat reference price for a trading pair). It distinguishes from siblings like get_symbol_price or get_tickers by specifying 'fiat reference price', but lacks explicit 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_symbol_price, get_tickers). It doesn't mention context or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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