Get Pulse Verity Index Batch

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

Adds substantial behavioral detail beyond the annotations: individually signed successful rows, per-symbol errors for unavailable rows, unsigned surrounding metadata, and no automatic retries. Describes the partial-success model and verification requirement with no contradiction to readOnlyHint=true.

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?

Five sentences, each carrying distinct information: purpose, return shape, tier limits, verification step, retry policy. No fluff or redundancy, and the core action is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description sketches the return envelope (observations, individually signed rows, per-symbol errors) and the follow-up verification step. A more concrete response-field description would improve completeness, but for a simple one-parameter read tool it is largely sufficient.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description partially compensates by adding the tier-dependent limit caveat ('Your API tier may allow fewer symbols') that the schema's maxItems=100 does not capture. However, it does not clarify symbol format or normalization expectations beyond what the schema pattern already enforces.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('Read'), a concrete resource ('crypto symbols'), and scope ('up to 100 in one /api/index/v1/batch request'). The batch nature plus per-symbol error handling clearly distinguishes this from siblings like get_index_price and get_settlement_print.

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?

Clear context for when to call it (multi-symbol reads up to 100) with a post-call workflow ('Verify each successful row with verify_print') and a tier-limits caveat. However, it never explicitly names get_index_price as the single-symbol alternative or states when-not to use the batch tool.

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