broker_get_asset_data

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive safety. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond annotations: prices include spread and differ from Pro Trading prices, and the endpoint is marked [PUBLIC], which is useful authentication context. It doesn't detail the response shape, but for a read-only ticker call the safety profile is already well covered.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: it front-loads the operation, gives the key differentiator, then provides minimal parameter requirements. Every sentence adds information needed for selection or invocation, and the structure is easy to scan.

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?

Given only two parameters, full schema coverage, and strong sibling context, the description contains what an agent needs to call the tool correctly. The lack of an output schema means return fields aren't specified, but 'comprehensive market ticker data' plus the tool name is sufficient for a basic call. A minor gap is not explicitly listing the data fields returned, but this is acceptable at this complexity.

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 100%, so both base_symbol and quote_symbol are already fully documented in the input schema. The description only restates the examples and default (BTC, EUR) without adding new semantic constraints or format details. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Gets comprehensive market ticker data') and resource ('a cryptocurrency') with explicit service scope: Wallet/Broker, not Pro Trading. The phrase 'prices include spread and differ from Pro Trading prices' clearly distinguishes it from sibling quote/ticker tools. This is unambiguous and directly tied to the tool's name and role.

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?

Explicitly identifies the Wallet/Broker context and warns that prices differ from Pro Trading, which tells an agent when this tool is appropriate. It also states the required base_symbol and optional quote_symbol with defaults. However, it does not name the exact sibling alternative (e.g., pro_get_ticker) for Pro Trading data, leaving the alternative somewhat implicit.

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