get_price

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. It adds valuable behavioral detail: mid-price calculation, fallback behavior for illiquid pairs, and authoritative sourcing. It does not mention error cases or market_type-specific behavior, but the output schema covers return shape.

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?

Two compact sentences with no filler. The formula and normal-case behavior are front-loaded, followed by an authoritative usage directive. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a simple price-query tool, the description is largely complete: purpose, formula, fallback behavior, and usage guidance are all present, and the output schema handles return values. The only notable gap is the undocumented market_type parameter, which prevents a perfect score.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter documentation. It only generically references 'symbol' and says nothing about market_type, its allowed values, or its effect on the price. This is a meaningful gap for correct invocation.

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 returns a live mid-price for a symbol, includes the exact formula, and notes a fallback to last traded price. It further positions itself as the ONLY valid source for a current price, which distinguishes it from price-adjacent sibling tools even without naming them.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: whenever a current price is needed. It also strongly forbids quoting prices from memory, effectively ruling out alternatives as invalid sources for current pricing.

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