get_dual_index

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool fetches ('underlying index price') without any mention of side effects, permissions, rate limits, or return format. As a getter it's presumably safe, but that is not disclosed, leaving a significant gap in behavioral transparency.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the key concept ('Underlying index price') with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity and easy to parse.

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 simplicity (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides the core purpose but omits any information about return values or output format. Since no output schema exists, the description should at least indicate what the agent will receive (e.g., a numeric price), but it doesn't. This is a minor gap for a simple getter, but it leaves the agent slightly uncertain about the response.

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 input schema provides no descriptions for 'base' and 'quote' (0% schema coverage), so the description must compensate. It adds context that the tool operates on a 'dual-investment pair', which implies base and quote are the two assets of the pair. This gives minimal semantic meaning, but it doesn't explain expected formats, examples, or any additional parameter details, so it only partially compensates.

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 states a specific verb ('get') and resource ('underlying index price for a dual-investment pair'), which makes the tool's purpose clear. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_dual_prices', but the term 'underlying index price' suggests a distinct concept from product prices, giving some differentiation.

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 usage in the context of dual-investment pairs (for retrieving the index price), but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_dual_prices' or when not to use it. The context is clear enough to infer basic usage, but no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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