broker_get_asset_price

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world hints, so the safety profile is established. The description adds useful behavioral facts beyond that: it returns a list, prices are for one base unit, EUR is the default quote, and the operation is public. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise sentences plus the [PUBLIC] tag front-load the purpose, add the key default, and note the optional filters. Slightly repetitive phrasing around Wallet/Broker service costs the fifth point, but there is no wasted detail.

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 read-only price lookup with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential semantics: price in quote units, default quote, optional base filter, historical date support, and list response. It is adequate for correct invocation, though it leaves minor ambiguity about what each list entry contains when multiple symbols are returned.

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 each parameter already has a meaningful description. The description reinforces that date is for historical rates and base_symbol is optional, and it clarifies the price-unit semantics, but it does not substantially extend the parameter definitions themselves.

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?

Description identifies a specific verb and resource: gets Wallet/Broker exchange rates for cryptocurrencies and returns the price of one unit in a chosen quote symbol. It is clear enough to differentiate a price lookup from other broker reads, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools like broker_get_asset_data or pro_get_ticker to eliminate ambiguity.

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 gives context about optional filters and the default EUR, but it never states when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pro_get_ticker, broker_get_asset_data, or portfolio_get_validation. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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