get_ticker_24h

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the primary behavior (rolling 24h stats for one or all symbols) and the effect of an empty symbol. However, it does not mention any side effects, rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether the operation is read-only, though 'get' implies read-only. The time window is stated, but other behavioral traits are absent.

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, well-structured sentence with no redundancy. The main purpose and scope are front-loaded, and the empty-symbol behavior is stated succinctly. Every phrase contributes essential information, and there is no wasted text.

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 read tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality and lists the returned fields, which is helpful. However, it fails to explain the market_type parameter and does not describe the response format beyond the field list. With no annotations and no output schema, more behavioral and parameter context would be expected, but given the simplicity, the description is adequate but not 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must clarify parameter meanings. It explains the 'symbol' parameter well (empty means all symbols), but it completely ignores 'market_type'. With two parameters and zero schema documentation, leaving one undefined is a significant gap. The description adds value for symbol but not for market_type, 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 ('24-hour rolling stats') with a clear resource (symbol) and enumerates the exact data fields (open/close/high/low/volume/amount/count). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_price or get_book_ticker by specifying the rolling statistics scope, and it clarifies the all-symbols behavior when symbol is empty.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_price or get_klines. The only usage hint is the behavior when symbol is empty, which is more about parameter handling than selection criteria. There is no mention of when to prefer this over other market data endpoints.

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