Compare Price References

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the conditional return of best-execution ranking based on amount and liquidity checking. This goes beyond the annotation hints.

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 with two sentences. Every word serves a purpose: the first sentence states the core function, and the second provides critical conditional behavior. No redundant information.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should clarify what the tool returns. It only mentions 'best-execution ranking' conditionally, but does not describe the default output (e.g., list of price references, their format, or how they are ranked). This lacks completeness for an agent to understand the full 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?

With 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds minimal value, only noting that amount is optional and affects output. The behavioral note on amount is useful but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Compare') and resource ('market price references'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that deal with orders, status, and privacy bridges. The 'quote-per-base orientation' clarifies the comparison context.

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 explains that amount is optional and when best-execution ranking is returned, providing clear context for usage. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, though the differentiation is implicitly clear from sibling tool names.

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