get_ticker

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the endpoint is public, which indicates no authentication is needed, and lists the return data. However, it doesn't mention error handling, rate limits, or how 'live' the data is. For a simple read-only ticker, this is adequate but leaves some gaps.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence immediately communicates the core purpose and scope, the second lists return fields and public status. It's well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

The description covers purpose, parameter format, return fields, and public accessibility. It lacks explicit error behavior and data freshness details, but for a lightweight public endpoint with a single parameter and no output schema, it is nearly complete. The missing items are non-critical for this simple 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by providing an example ('BTC-EUR') that clarifies the expected format for 'market'. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, but it doesn't enumerate valid values or define timezone behavior. Still, for a single parameter, it is quite helpful.

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 tool's specific function: providing a live 24-hour ticker for a single market. It names the return fields (open/high/low/last/volume/bid/ask) and gives a concrete example, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_markets (list of markets) or get_candles (historical data).

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 conveys clear usage context: this is the tool for a single market's current 24-hour ticker. It implies a real-time use case and mentions the market format (e.g., 'BTC-EUR'). While it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, the context is clear enough for an agent to decide when to use it.

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