Get Recorded Print

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: sampling and retention are bounded, recorded prints may differ from live reads, deltaMs semantics, the need for a developer key, and the recordValid flag. It does not contradict any annotation.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and packs several useful behavioral notes efficiently. It is somewhat dense with eight sentences, but almost every sentence carries actionable information; minor tightening could improve it, but there is no fluff or repetition.

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 an output schema and read-only annotations, the description covers the critical missing pieces: authentication requirements, input format for 'at', sampling limitations, and downstream verification needs. It is largely complete, though it could mention error or empty-result behavior.

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 coverage is 50% (symbol is described, at is not). The description compensates by stating that 'at' accepts ISO-8601 or epoch milliseconds, which is critical formatting information absent from the schema. It adds meaning beyond the schema for the undocumented parameter, though it does not elaborate on symbol (already covered).

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('recorded signed index print') with a clear scope ('nearest a requested time'). It distinguishes the tool from a live read but does not explicitly name any sibling tool (e.g., get_index_price, get_settlement_print) as an alternative, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 clear context for interpreting the result (check deltaMs, sampling/retention bounds, recordValid requirement, and preserving fields for verify_print), but it never states when to use this tool versus the available siblings like get_index_price or get_settlement_print. Usage is implied by the focus on recorded prints, but explicit selection guidance is absent.

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