get_pair_ratio

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the returned fields (ratio, 24h change, funding rate), indicating a read operation. However, it does not mention side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling. For a simple getter, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 three sentences: purpose, input instruction, and usage with output. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates 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?

Given no output schema and simple input (two arrays), the description covers the essential return fields and usage context. It does not detail exact return format or edge cases, but for a tool that retrieves a single number, it is fairly complete.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions (longAssets: 'Asset symbols on the long side (e.g. ['BTC']).', shortAssets: 'Asset symbols on the short side. Pass an empty array for long-only baskets.'). The description adds minimal nuance beyond stating 'Pass long and short asset arrays,' so it meets the baseline expectation.

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 (current ratio for a Pear Protocol pair). It specifies the input format (long and short asset arrays) and output composition (ratio, 24h change, funding rate). However, it could be more explicit about what exactly the ratio represents, though 'long/short composition price' provides a clue.

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 says 'Useful when you know the pair you care about and want the latest number,' which implies suitable scenarios. It does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or provide alternative tools from the sibling list, but given the sibling names (e.g., get_active_markets, list_markets), the usage context is reasonable.

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