tick-to-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 states the conversion action but lacks details on error handling (e.g., invalid tick values), computational constraints (e.g., precision limits), or output format (e.g., numeric price, denom units). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose ('Converts a tick value to a price'), making it easy to understand at a glance. Every part of the sentence contributes essential information.

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 (conversion with 3 parameters) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It identifies the conversion purpose but omits details on output (e.g., price format), error cases, or use cases. While it covers the basic function, it does not fully compensate for the missing structured data.

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%, with all parameters ('tick', 'baseAssetDenom', 'quoteAssetDenom') well-documented in the schema. The description does not add any semantic details beyond the schema, such as explaining the relationship between base/quote assets or tick ranges. Thus, it meets the baseline score for high schema coverage without extra value.

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: 'Converts a tick value to a price for CL pools.' It specifies the verb ('converts'), resource ('tick value'), and target ('price for CL pools'), making the function unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from its sibling tool 'price-to-tick', which performs the inverse operation, preventing a perfect score.

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 does not mention the sibling 'price-to-tick' for reverse conversions or specify contexts like trading, analytics, or liquidity management where this conversion is needed. Without such guidance, users must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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