Price snapshot

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is free. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that: it discloses which fields are populated per market and explicitly warns that non-Egyptian instruments return null for most fields, which prevents an agent from misreading sparse responses. It omits any note on rate limits or latency.

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?

Front-loaded with the core capability ('All markets: current quote for up to 50 instruments'), then per-market field detail. The field enumerations are long but each one conveys concrete return-shape information rather than filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly carries the return-value burden and does so in detail: field sets per market, null behavior for US/UAE, and cross-market id mixing. It is nearly complete for a snapshot tool, lacking only response-size or timing caveats.

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 100%, so the enum values and the symbol/UUID format are already documented in the schema. The description's note that asset ids of different markets may be mixed largely restates the schema's own 'they may be mixed' wording, adding little new parameter meaning.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'current quote' for up to 50 instruments across markets. This implicitly separates it from get_price_history (historical) and get_instrument_details (metadata), but it never names those siblings or explicitly draws the boundary, so it stops short of a 5.

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 establishes scope (all markets, up to 50 symbols, ids may be mixed) but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and never routes the agent to an alternative such as get_price_history or get_instrument_details. Usage is only implied by the content.

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