get_ticker

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 mentions the return format ('Returns a merged dict with...') which adds some behavioral context, but it doesn't disclose critical traits like whether this is a read-only operation, latency expectations, rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. For a financial data tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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 concise and well-structured. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, and the second sentence efficiently lists the return fields without unnecessary details. Every sentence earns its place, and it's front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (single parameter, financial data retrieval), the description is reasonably complete. It specifies what data is returned, and since an output schema exists (implied by context signals), it doesn't need to explain return values in detail. However, it lacks context on behavioral aspects like safety or performance, which would be helpful given no annotations.

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 description doesn't explicitly discuss parameters, but the input schema has 100% coverage with one parameter ('symbol') fully documented. Since schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3. The description adds value by implying the parameter's purpose through the tool's function ('for a symbol'), slightly enhancing understanding beyond the schema's technical description.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get latest price, 24 h stats, and mark/index prices for a symbol.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('price, 24 h stats, and mark/index prices'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_symbol_info or get_recent_trades, which might provide overlapping data.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when this tool is appropriate compared to siblings like get_symbol_info (which might provide static symbol details) or get_recent_trades (which might provide trade history). There's no context about prerequisites, timing, or exclusions.

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