get_ticker

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses what data will be returned (price, volume, 24h high/low), which is useful, but it does not mention side effects, authentication, rate limits, or that it is read-only (though 'get' implies it). The disclosure is minimal but sufficient for a simple retrieval tool.

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 and front-loaded with the tool's purpose ('[Ticker / Price]'), followed by a brief explanation of the data retrieved. It wastes no words, though it could be more structured with explicit parameter details.

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 one-parameter tool without an output schema, the description is mostly complete in explaining what data is returned, but it omits parameter format and any edge cases (e.g., invalid pair handling). Given the lack of annotations, this is a minor gap.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate for the parameter. It fails to explain the 'pair' parameter's expected format, allowed values, or what constitutes a valid pair (e.g., 'btc_jpy'), leaving the agent to infer from the default value. The description adds no semantic value beyond what the schema already shows.

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 verb ('取得' – get) and the resource ('ticker for a single pair'), and specifies the data included (current price, volume, 24h high/low). It distinguishes from sibling 'get_tickers_jpy' through the explicit '単一ペア' (single pair), but does not name the sibling directly.

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 phrase '単一ペア' implies the tool is for retrieving data for one pair, suggesting that for multiple pairs one would use a different tool, but no explicit alternatives or exclusions are given. Usage context is implied rather than stated directly.

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