pro_get_ticker

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: the 24-hour lookback window, the public nature of the endpoint, and a summary of the response fields. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 reasonably compact and front-loaded, but it contains redundancy: the returned fields are listed twice ('OHLCV, current best bid and ask, percentage...' vs 'open, close, bid, ask, high, low...'), and the pair filtering is stated twice. It is not concise enough for a 5, but not bloated enough for a 2.

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 simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: what data is returned, the time window, and how to filter by pair. The phrase 'from the date indicated' is slightly ambiguous, but it does not prevent correct use.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, with the 'pair' parameter fully described. The description mostly restates this ('by requested market symbol', 'Optional pair filter'), adding little beyond the schema. Baseline 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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Get ticker information', and enumerates the data returned (OHLCV, best bid/ask, 24h percentage change), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like order book, candles, and public trades. It also states the scope: all markets or a specific pair.

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 clear context for when to call the tool: for all markets or filtered by an optional pair, with data covering the last 24 hours. It does not explicitly mention alternative tools or exclusions, but the 'ticker information' framing makes the intended use clear relative to market-data siblings.

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