get_dual_prices

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds value by noting that stale or invented profit is rejected, which is a critical behavioral trait. However, it doesn't explicitly state it's read-only (though 'current prices' implies it) or describe response format, pagination, or error behavior. It partially discloses behavior but is not comprehensive.

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 exactly two sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence states the purpose, the second provides a critical usage note. Every word contributes to clarity and actionable guidance, and the key directive is 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 the core purpose and the critical profit requirement, but it does not specify the response structure, such as whether it returns an object or array with fields like price and yield. Without an output schema, this gap means an agent may not know how to extract the required profit. For a simple get operation, it's adequate but not fully complete.

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 0%, so the description must clarify parameters. It does for `product_ids` by specifying 'comma-separated', but it does not explain `base` and `quote`, which are required. The description adds some meaning but leaves two of three parameters unexplained, so it only partially compensates for the lack of schema information.

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: returning current prices/yields for specific dual products, with product IDs as comma-separated input. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_dual_products (listing) and get_dual_index (index) by focusing on prices/yields. The verb 'get' and resource 'dual prices' are explicit.

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 includes a strong usage directive: the `profit` value MUST come from this tool, implying it is the authoritative source for investing. This tells the agent when to use it (before investing) but doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. It provides clear context without exclusions, earning a 4.

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