get_tickers_jpy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. '取得' implies a read operation, but it does not disclose the return format, pagination/limit behavior, ordering semantics, or any rate/permission considerations. The only behavioral addition is that ranking by change rate or volume is possible, which is thin for an unannotated 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 a single efficient sentence (plus a bracketed identity tag). The 'All Tickers / Market Overview' tag front-loads the tool's scope and differentiator. No wasted words, though the brevity means some semantic load is shifted to the schema.

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 4-parameter list tool with all parameters optional and enum-constrained, the schema carries a heavy load. The description adds the JPY-scope and ranking semantics, which are the core value. Missing are when-to-use-vs-get_ticker guidance, return format, and the 'name' sort option — genuine gaps but manageable given the simple nature of the tool and the schema's clarity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does: '変化率・出来高でランキング表示可能' (ranking can be shown by change rate/volume) maps directly to the sortBy enum values change24h and volume, and 'ランキング' ties to view='ranked'. However, it omits the sortBy option 'name' and says nothing about limit or order, so compensation is incomplete.

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 states a specific verb (取得/get) applied to a specific resource (全JPYペアのティッカー一覧 — all JPY pair tickers). The bracketed tag 'All Tickers / Market Overview' signals a list-scoped tool, which distinguishes it from the singular get_ticker sibling. It is clear on what it does, though it relies on the name/scope tag rather than an explicit contrast.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It never mentions that a single pair should use get_ticker, nor when the overview is preferable. The 'All Tickers / Market Overview' label implies breadth vs. the singular sibling, but that's inference, not stated guidance — no exclusions or conditions are given.

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