broker_get_asset_price

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It states the tool is '[PUBLIC]' (implying no authentication required) and returns a list of prices. However, it does not explicitly state it is read-only, non-destructive, or mention rate limits, caching, or potential delays. For a simple read operation, the description is adequate but not thorough.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus a tag. It front-loads the core purpose and format, then adds optional parameters. Every sentence provides essential information with 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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should compensate by explaining the return format. It says 'Returns the price of one unit... as used by the Wallet/Broker service' and 'Response is a list of prices.' This is somewhat vague; it does not specify whether the list contains objects with fields like base, quote, price, timestamp, or just numbers. Given the lack of output schema, more detail would enhance completeness.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents the parameters. The description adds value by specifying default quote symbol (EUR), giving an example for base_symbol (e.g., BTC), and clarifying the date format (ISO 8601). These additions improve parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 gets exchange rates for cryptocurrencies in a specific quote symbol and date. It specifies the action (Get Wallet exchange rates), the resource (cryptocurrencies), and the nuance (price of one unit of base in quote, default EUR). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like broker_quote_buy/sell/swap which create quotes, and broker_get_asset_chart/data which return charts or asset metadata.

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 clearly indicates this tool is for retrieving current or historical exchange rates, with optional filtering by base symbol and date. It implies usage for price queries. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives for different needs (e.g., if you need a buy/sell quote, use broker_quote*).

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