Get Pulse Verity Index Price

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description explains important behavior: the response is signed, includes a kid and sig, some fields are not covered by the v1 signature, priceText must be preserved exactly, and a stale response should never be interpreted as zero. This significantly helps the agent interpret results correctly.

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 information-dense yet well-structured: purpose and endpoint first, then return fields, then critical caveats about signature coverage and error semantics. Every sentence adds value and nothing is redundant 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?

With no output schema, the description supplies a full list of return fields and explains the signature boundary. It also covers asset discovery, exact-preservation requirements for verify_print, and stale-response behavior. For a one-parameter read-only tool, nothing essential is missing.

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 schema already fully documents the single symbol parameter with a pattern, length constraints, and examples, so the description does not need to compensate. The description adds no parameter-specific formatting guidance, but at 100% schema coverage the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get a current signed crypto index price from /api/index/v1/price.' It also distinguishes itself from siblings by pointing to list_index_assets for asset discovery and verify_print for exact priceText preservation, so an agent can tell this tool apart without opening schemas.

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 gives clear usage context: this tool retrieves a single signed index price, and coverage changes should route the agent to list_index_assets. It also warns that a stale/unavailable response means no current price, never zero. It does not explicitly mention get_index_batch as an alternative for multiple symbols, but the provided guidance is still strong.

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