get_prices

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the action and scope. It omits any details about return format, data freshness, authentication needs, or potential side effects. While the tool is inherently read-only, the description does not explicitly disclose this or any other behavioral traits.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and resource with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and instantly parseable, scoring high on conciseness and structure.

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 the tool's simplicity (zero parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides adequate context for an agent to invoke it correctly. It explains the main purpose and scope, and while it does not describe the return structure, that is not required for a parameterless retrieval tool.

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 tool has no parameters, so the description correctly does not attempt to describe any. The schema is trivially complete (100% coverage), and per guidelines, a zero-parameter tool earns a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter-specific information because none is needed.

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 action (get), the object (current prices), and the scope (all instruments), making it distinct from sibling tools like get_instruments (instrument metadata) and get_candles (historical price data). It leaves no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 implies a simple snapshot use case but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_candles or get_instruments. It neither names alternatives nor gives when-not-to-use conditions, leaving usage to inference.

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