Strata mark

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to repeat safety. It adds context by specifying the price is 'customer-facing' and 'current,' which informs expected semantics. However, it does not disclose behavior on invalid inputs, rate limits, or any additional side effects beyond what annotations state. Given the rich annotations, the description provides adequate additional context without contradiction.

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, direct sentence with no extraneous words. It front-loads the purpose and delivers the core information efficiently. Every word contributes value, and there is no fluff or repetition.

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 strong annotations and a single parameter, the description is complete enough. It clearly states what is read, the scope, and the nature of the price. It does not describe the output format, but given no output schema, this is a minor gap. It adequately covers the essential context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly and interpret the returned price as the reference price for the specified market.

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 compensate. It adds the meaning 'opaque' to marketId, clarifying it is a system-generated identifier rather than a human-readable name. It also implies a single market ID via 'one opaque market ID,' matching the schema's required field. However, beyond that, it does not elaborate on format, constraints, or units, though the schema already defines the pattern. The addition is minimal but sufficient for a simple one-parameter tool.

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 action (read), the resource (current customer-facing reference price), and the scope (one opaque market ID). It distinguishes from siblings like strata_bbo or strata_quote by specifying 'reference price' rather than bid/offer or quoted price. The verb+resource combination is specific and unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when it is appropriate or not, nor does it reference any sibling tools for comparison. The context is implied (e.g., if you need a reference price, use this), but there is no explicit directive or exclusion.

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