get_cardano_price

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'aggregated price from DEX liquidity pools' which implies read-only data fetching, but doesn't cover rate limits, data freshness, error conditions, authentication needs, or what 'aggregated' means computationally. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational 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, dense sentence with zero wasted words. Every element ('Get aggregated price', 'Cardano native token', 'DEX liquidity pools', 'TOKEN/USDT via ADA bridge') serves a specific informational purpose. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently conveys the essential details.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a single parameter with good schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the aggregated price represents (weighted average? median?), how frequently it updates, what format the return value takes, or potential error scenarios. For a financial data tool, this leaves too much unspecified about the tool's behavior and output.

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 has 100% description coverage for its single parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds marginal value by listing example token symbols (INDY, SNEK, MIN, NIGHT) which helps clarify the 'symbol' parameter's expected values, but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what the schema already documents.

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 specific action ('Get aggregated price') and resource ('Cardano native token'), specifying the exact mechanism ('from DEX liquidity pools') and context ('TOKEN/USDT via ADA bridge'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_ticker or get_orderbook by focusing on aggregated token pricing rather than market data or order books.

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 like get_ticker (which might provide broader market data) or get_orderbook (which shows depth). It mentions the specific token types (INDY, SNEK, MIN, NIGHT) but doesn't explain why this tool is preferred for aggregated pricing over other price-related tools in the sibling list.

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