get_market_price

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the meaningful behavioral fact that the result is a global quote rather than an order book or average, but says nothing about freshness/latency, rate limits, or credential behavior.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero waste; the core scope statement is front-loaded and the disambiguation follows. Every sentence earns its place.

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 two-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description tells the agent what the returned value represents (a latest global quoted price for one item). It stops short of describing freshness or handling of unknown item codes, but nothing critical to invoking it is missing.

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 100%: item_code is documented with examples ('iron', 'bread') and player_context explains the credential shape, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only implies the single-item constraint ('for one item') and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, warranting the baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get the latest global quoted price') and immediately bounds the scope ('single price snapshot for one item'). An agent can distinguish this from the sibling search_market, which suggests a broader search/list operation.

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 clarifies what the tool is not (not an order book, not a market average), which implies usage boundaries, but it never names an alternative tool or states the condition under which it should be chosen over search_market or search_events. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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