get_book_ticker

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 provides minimal detail. It doesn't state whether this is a read-only operation (which is likely but not stated), rate limits, or any side effects. It also doesn't mention what happens if the symbol is invalid. The description is too sparse to be transparent about 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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. It's a single sentence that gets to the point. However, it could be slightly more structured with a separate mention of 'market_type', but overall it's efficient.

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 only 2 optional parameters and no output schema, the description should provide more context for correct use. It lacks information about return format, the meaning of 'market_type' (e.g., SPOT vs other), and any prerequisites. The description is too thin for an agent to call this tool with confidence.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameters, but it only mentions 'symbol' indirectly ('if symbol is empty') and doesn't address 'market_type' at all. Given 0% coverage, the description fails to compensate; the agent has no idea what 'market_type' does or its possible values. This is a significant gap.

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 purpose: to get the best bid/ask for a symbol or all symbols. It uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('book ticker'), and it's distinct from siblings like 'get_price' and 'get_ticker_24h'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the most similar siblings, so it misses the top score.

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 when to use this tool (when you need best bid/ask) but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention that 'get_price' might be used for last price, or 'get_ticker_24h' for 24-hour stats. This leaves the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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