pro_get_ticker

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states '[PUBLIC]' indicating accessibility, and clarifies that 'data refers to the last 24 hours from the date indicated.' However, it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, rate limits, or any other behavioral traits beyond the scope.

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 concise, consisting of a few sentences. The first sentence clearly states the action and outputs, and the last sentence lists the returned fields. No unnecessary information, though it could be more structured with bullet points.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the return data (OHLCV, bid/ask, percentage change, volumes) and time scope. It is fairly complete for an agent to understand the tool's behavior, though the exact response format (e.g., array vs object) is not mentioned.

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% and the schema description already explains the 'pair' parameter. The description adds the context of 'optional pair filter' but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema. A baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get ticker information (OHLCV, current best bid and ask, percentage versus price 24 hours ago) for all markets or by requested market symbol.' It specifies the verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from similar sibling tools like pro_get_candles or pro_get_order_book, leaving some 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 mentions 'Optional pair filter for a specific market' implying when to provide the pair parameter, but it provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for historical data, use pro_get_candles). The usage context is implied but not explicit.

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