price

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that prices are live and in USD, and 'get' implies a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose potential latency, error behavior for invalid symbols, or any limits on batch size. For a simple lookup tool, this is adequate but minimal.

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, front-loaded sentence: 'Get live USD spot prices for one or more cryptocurrencies by ticker symbol (e.g. BTC, ETH, SOL).' It is efficient, contains no filler, and includes examples to aid comprehension.

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 has one required parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly sufficient. It states the purpose and examples, but does not specify the response format (e.g., a map of symbols to prices). Without an output schema, this is a minor gap, but not severe for a simple getter.

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 100%: the single parameter 'symbols' is fully described with format and return currency. The description repeats the example tickers but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Thus the baseline score of 3 is appropriate; the schema already carries the semantic weight.

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 function: getting live USD spot prices for cryptocurrencies by ticker. The verb 'get' and resource 'cryptocurrency prices' are specific, and the examples (BTC, ETH, SOL) help clarify. It distinguishes itself from siblings like convert_currency by focusing on crypto spot prices.

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 gives clear context: use this tool when you need live USD spot prices for cryptocurrencies. The cryptocurrency scope implicitly excludes fiat currencies and other tools like convert_currency. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state 'do not use for fiat', so it falls short of a fully explicit guideline.

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