Get the Canton Coin (CC) price

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the behavioral differences between parameter combinations (current vs historical spot vs OHLC series) and the default interval. However, it does not mention any rate limits, authentication requirements, or potential side effects, which are minor omissions for a simple read-only price tool.

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: two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, and each sentence serves a distinct function (purpose + parameter behavior + usage example). No redundancy or filler.

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 tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough context for common use cases. It explains the main modes but does not describe the return format (e.g., what OHLC data looks like). This is a minor gap, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

Although the input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for each parameter, the description adds significant semantic grouping by explaining how parameters work together (e.g., 'startDate+endDate → OHLC series'). It also clarifies the default interval ('default daily') and gives an example usage, going beyond what the schema 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 verb 'Get' and specific resource 'Canton Coin (CC) USD price'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_balance or get_rewards, which deal with different financial data. The mention of 'USD price' and different query modes makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 three explicit usage patterns: no arguments for current price, timestamp for historical spot, and startDate+endDate for OHLC series with interval options. It also gives an example question ('what's the CC price trend over the past month?'), effectively guiding the agent. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives to sibling tools, but the context is clear enough.

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